Literature DB >> 17334898

Seemingly minor changes to a questionnaire can make a big difference to mean scores: a cautionary tale.

Robert Goodman1, Alessandra C Iervolino, Stephan Collishaw, Andrew Pickles, Barbara Maughan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is not unusual for researchers to make apparently minor modifications to existing instruments without checking if this alters psychometric properties.
METHOD: Equivalent items on child mental health from two different versions of the Rutter parent questionnaire were compared: items from the standard version and from a modified version. The parents of 400 children aged 5-7 years were randomised into two groups: each group completed one version of the Rutter as well as an independent measure of psychopathology (the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SDQ).
RESULTS: The mean psychopathology scores of the two groups were comparable according to the SDQ but differed markedly between the two Rutter versions, principally because of changes in the response categories. Nevertheless, the validity of the two versions of the Rutter was similar as judged from Rutter-SDQ correlations.
CONCLUSION: Seemingly minor changes in the wording of a measure can have a major impact on mean scores, thereby making it harder to compare or combine the results of studies using the original and the modified measure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17334898     DOI: 10.1007/s00127-007-0169-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol        ISSN: 0933-7954            Impact factor:   4.519


  4 in total

1.  The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note.

Authors:  R Goodman
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 8.982

2.  Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire.

Authors:  R Goodman
Journal:  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 8.829

3.  The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden.

Authors:  R Goodman
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 8.982

4.  Time trends in adolescent mental health.

Authors:  Stephan Collishaw; Barbara Maughan; Robert Goodman; Andrew Pickles
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 8.982

  4 in total
  15 in total

1.  Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): properties and frontier of current knowledge.

Authors:  I H Monrad Aas
Journal:  Ann Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 3.455

2.  Investigation of relative risk estimates from studies of the same population with contrasting response rates and designs.

Authors:  Nicole M Mealing; Emily Banks; Louisa R Jorm; David G Steel; Mark S Clements; Kris D Rogers
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Behaviour problems in Chinese primary school children.

Authors:  Therese Hesketh; Yan Zheng; Ye Xu Jun; Zhu Wei Xing; Zhou Xu Dong; Li Lu
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-06       Impact factor: 4.328

Review 4.  Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: a review.

Authors:  Lisanne L Stone; Roy Otten; Rutger C M E Engels; Ad A Vermulst; Jan M A M Janssens
Journal:  Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-09

5.  How interview questions are placed in time influences caregiver description of social communication symptoms on the ADI-R.

Authors:  Rebecca M Jones; Susan Risi; Diana Wexler; Deborah Anderson; Christina Corsello; Andrew Pickles; Catherine Lord
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 8.982

6.  Validity and reliability of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in 5-6 year olds: differences by gender or by parental education?

Authors:  Cathelijne Mieloo; Hein Raat; Floor van Oort; Floor Bevaart; Ineke Vogel; Marianne Donker; Wilma Jansen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Guidelines for rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).

Authors:  I H Monrad Aas
Journal:  Ann Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 3.455

8.  Investigating the validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to assess ADHD in young adulthood.

Authors:  Lucy Riglin; Sharifah Shameem Agha; Olga Eyre; Rhys Bevan Jones; Robyn E Wootton; Ajay K Thapar; Stephan Collishaw; Evie Stergiakouli; Kate Langley; Anita Thapar
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 11.225

9.  Collecting Information for Rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Sources of Information and Methods for Information Collection.

Authors:  Monrad Aas I H
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rev       Date:  2014-11

10.  Agreement between mothers', fathers', and teachers' ratings of behavioural and emotional problems in 3-5-year-old children.

Authors:  Elisabet Fält; Thomas Wallby; Anna Sarkadi; Raziye Salari; Helena Fabian
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.