Literature DB >> 29881057

Bias in Point Estimates and Standard Errors of Mokken's Scalability Coefficients.

Renske E Kuijpers1, L Andries van der Ark2, Marcel A Croon3, Klaas Sijtsma3.   

Abstract

Mokken scale analysis uses three types of scalability coefficients to assess the quality of (a) pairs of items, (b) individual items, and (c) an entire scale. Both the point estimates and the standard errors of the scalability coefficients assume that the sample ordering of the item steps is identical to the population ordering, but due to sampling error, the sample ordering may be incorrect and, consequently, the estimates and the standard errors may be biased. Two simulation studies were used to investigate the bias of the estimates and the standard errors of the scalability coefficients, as well as the coverage of the 95% confidence intervals. Distance between item steps was the most important design factor. In addition, sample size, number of items, number of answer categories, and item discrimination were included in the design. Bias of the standard errors was negligible. Bias of the estimates was largest when all item steps were identical in the population, especially for small sample sizes. Furthermore, bias of the estimates decreased as number of answer categories increased and as item discrimination decreased. Coverage of the 95% confidence intervals was close to .950, but for small sample size coverage deteriorated. Coverage also became poorer as number of items increased, in particular for dichotomous items.

Keywords:  Guttman scale; categorical analysis; marginal models; nonparametric item response theory; polytomous items; scale construction; standard errors

Year:  2016        PMID: 29881057      PMCID: PMC5978577          DOI: 10.1177/0146621616638500

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas        ISSN: 0146-6216


  6 in total

1.  Score and profile likelihood confidence intervals for contingency table parameters.

Authors:  Joseph B Lang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  A cumulative scale of severe sexual sadism.

Authors:  Joachim Nitschke; Michael Osterheider; Andreas Mokros
Journal:  Sex Abuse       Date:  2009-07-15

3.  Psychometric validation of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) subscales for depression, anxiety, and interpersonal sensitivity.

Authors:  P Bech; J Bille; S B Møller; L C Hellström; S D Østergaard
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 4.839

4.  Estimating the severity of intellectual disability in adults: a Mokken scaling analysis of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire.

Authors:  Aja L Murray; Karen McKenzie
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2013-04-01

5.  Mokken Scale Analysis for Dichotomous Items Using Marginal Models.

Authors:  L Andries van der Ark; Marcel A Croon; Klaas Sijtsma
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 2.500

6.  Losing the ability in activities of daily living in the oldest old: a hierarchic disability scale from the Newcastle 85+ study.

Authors:  Andrew Kingston; Joanna Collerton; Karen Davies; John Bond; Louise Robinson; Carol Jagger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Establishing dimensionality of sexual behaviours in patients with regional brain dysfunction.

Authors:  Robert A Fieo; Hannah Silverman; Deirdre O'Shea; Masood Manoochehri; Jordan Grafman; Edward D Huey
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Bias of Two-Level Scalability Coefficients and Their Standard Errors.

Authors:  Letty Koopman; Bonne J H Zijlstra; Mark de Rooij; L Andries van der Ark
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2019-05-14

3.  Simplified Post-stroke Functioning Assessment Based on ICF via Dichotomous Mokken Scale Analysis and Rasch Modeling.

Authors:  Chun Feng; Zhong-Li Jiang; Ming-Xue Sun; Feng Lin
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.086

4.  Psychometric validation of Czech version of the Sport Motivation Scale.

Authors:  Martin Komarc; Ivana Harbichová; Lawrence M Scheier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.