Elizabeth E Marfeo1, Pengsheng Ni2, Leighton Chan3, Elizabeth K Rasch3, Alan M Jette2. 1. Health & Disability Research Institute, Department of Health Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T5W, Boston, MA 02118-2526, USA. Electronic address: emarfeo@bu.edu. 2. Health & Disability Research Institute, Department of Health Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T5W, Boston, MA 02118-2526, USA. 3. Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3C01, MSC 7515, Bethesda, MD 20892-7515, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article was to investigate optimal functioning of using frequency vs. agreement rating scales in two subdomains of the newly developed Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery: the Mood & Emotions and Behavioral Control scales. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A psychometric study comparing rating scale performance embedded in a cross-sectional survey used for developing a new instrument to measure behavioral health functioning among adults applying for disability benefits in the United States was performed. RESULTS: Within the sample of 1,017 respondents, the range of response category endorsement was similar for both frequency and agreement item types for both scales. There were fewer missing values in the frequency items than the agreement items. Both frequency and agreement items showed acceptable reliability. The frequency items demonstrated optimal effectiveness around the mean ± 1-2 standard deviation score range; the agreement items performed better at the extreme score ranges. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest an optimal response format requires a mix of both agreement-based and frequency-based items. Frequency items perform better in the normal range of responses, capturing specific behaviors, reactions, or situations that may elicit a specific response. Agreement items do better for those whose scores are more extreme and capture subjective content related to general attitudes, behaviors, or feelings of work-related behavioral health functioning.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article was to investigate optimal functioning of using frequency vs. agreement rating scales in two subdomains of the newly developed Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery: the Mood & Emotions and Behavioral Control scales. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A psychometric study comparing rating scale performance embedded in a cross-sectional survey used for developing a new instrument to measure behavioral health functioning among adults applying for disability benefits in the United States was performed. RESULTS: Within the sample of 1,017 respondents, the range of response category endorsement was similar for both frequency and agreement item types for both scales. There were fewer missing values in the frequency items than the agreement items. Both frequency and agreement items showed acceptable reliability. The frequency items demonstrated optimal effectiveness around the mean ± 1-2 standard deviation score range; the agreement items performed better at the extreme score ranges. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest an optimal response format requires a mix of both agreement-based and frequency-based items. Frequency items perform better in the normal range of responses, capturing specific behaviors, reactions, or situations that may elicit a specific response. Agreement items do better for those whose scores are more extreme and capture subjective content related to general attitudes, behaviors, or feelings of work-related behavioral health functioning.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Elizabeth E Marfeo; Pengsheng Ni; Stephen M Haley; Kara Bogusz; Mark Meterko; Christine M McDonough; Leighton Chan; Elizabeth K Rasch; Diane E Brandt; Alan M Jette Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Elizabeth E Marfeo; Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette; Susan V Eisen; Pengsheng Ni; Kara Bogusz; Mark Meterko; Christine M McDonough; Leighton Chan; Diane E Brandt; Elizabeth K Rasch Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-30 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Elizabeth E Marfeo; Pengsheng Ni; Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette; Kara Bogusz; Mark Meterko; Christine M McDonough; Leighton Chan; Diane E Brandt; Elizabeth K Rasch Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-30 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gregor Liegl; Barbara Gandek; H Felix Fischer; Jakob B Bjorner; John E Ware; Matthias Rose; James F Fries; Sandra Nolte Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Kehinde Akin-Akinyosoye; Nadia Frowd; Laura Marshall; Joanne Stocks; Gwen S Fernandes; Ana Valdes; Daniel F McWilliams; Weiya Zhang; Michael Doherty; Eamonn Ferguson; David A Walsh Journal: Pain Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: April N Naegeli; Jennifer Hanlon; Katharine S Gries; Shima Safikhani; Anna Ryden; Mira Patel; Mabel Crescioni; Margaret Vernon Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2018-09-06