Eduardo Chachamovich1, Marcelo P Fleck, Mick Power. 1. Post-Graduate Program on Psychiatry, University Federal of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Florencio Ygartua, 391/308, Porto Alegre - RS, CEP 90430-010, Brazil. echacha.ez@terra.com.br
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of inability to read on a five-point Likert scale, using the WHOQOL-BREF response scale. It is hypothesized that inability to read is related to loss of discriminant power among the five-category response scale. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a cross-sectional design, nonreaders (n=141) and subjects educated at a graduate level (n-907) were assessed. Statistical analyses combined classic and modern psychometric approaches (Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis). RESULTS: There is a remarkable difference in the psychometric performance of items across the two subgroups. Fit indexes proved to be closer to the ideal for the graduate group, but not for the nonreader group. Reducing the number of response categories improved the model exclusively for the nonreader sample. Nonreaders do not interpret the scale as a true five-category scale, but exhibit a response pattern indicative that only three categories are in fact considered. CONCLUSION: These results confirm the hypothesis that a multiple-category response scale is not suitable for nonreaders. They suggest that a simpler response scale should be adopted to achieve a more reliable and satisfactory psychometric performance in this population. This effect seems to be stronger when more abstract and subjective constructs are involved.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of inability to read on a five-point Likert scale, using the WHOQOL-BREF response scale. It is hypothesized that inability to read is related to loss of discriminant power among the five-category response scale. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a cross-sectional design, nonreaders (n=141) and subjects educated at a graduate level (n-907) were assessed. Statistical analyses combined classic and modern psychometric approaches (Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis). RESULTS: There is a remarkable difference in the psychometric performance of items across the two subgroups. Fit indexes proved to be closer to the ideal for the graduate group, but not for the nonreader group. Reducing the number of response categories improved the model exclusively for the nonreader sample. Nonreaders do not interpret the scale as a true five-category scale, but exhibit a response pattern indicative that only three categories are in fact considered. CONCLUSION: These results confirm the hypothesis that a multiple-category response scale is not suitable for nonreaders. They suggest that a simpler response scale should be adopted to achieve a more reliable and satisfactory psychometric performance in this population. This effect seems to be stronger when more abstract and subjective constructs are involved.
Authors: Anu Birla Bakshi; Shiou-Liang Wee; Charlene Tay; Loong-Mun Wong; Ian Yi-Onn Leong; Reshma A Merchant; Nan Luo Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Gracia Fellmeth; Emma Plugge; Mina Fazel; Prakaykaew Charunwattana; François Nosten; Raymond Fitzpatrick; Julie A Simpson; Rose McGready Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julio Cabrero-García; Juan Diego Ramos-Pichardo; Carmen Luz Muñoz-Mendoza; María José Cabañero-Martínez; Lorena González-Llopis; Abilio Reig-Ferrer Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Anupa Pathak; Saurab Sharma; Allen W Heinemann; Paul W Stratford; Daniel Cury Ribeiro; J Haxby Abbott Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 3.440