Literature DB >> 33998821

Estimating classification consistency of screening measures and quantifying the impact of measurement bias.

Oscar Gonzalez1, A R Georgeson1, William E Pelham2, Rachel T Fouladi3.   

Abstract

Screening measures are used in psychology and medicine to identify respondents who are high or low on a construct. Based on the screening, the evaluator assigns respondents to classes corresponding to different courses of action: Make a diagnosis versus reject a diagnosis; provide services versus withhold services; or conduct further assessment versus conclude the assessment process. When measures are used to classify individuals, it is important that the decisions be consistent and equitable across groups. Ideally, if respondents completed the screening measure repeatedly in quick succession, they would be consistently assigned into the same class each time. In addition, the consistency of the classification should be unrelated to the respondents' background characteristics, such as sex, race, or ethnicity (i.e., the measure is free of measurement bias). Reporting estimates of classification consistency is a common practice in educational testing, but there has been limited application of these estimates to screening in psychology and medicine. In this article, we present two procedures based on item response theory that are used (a) to estimate the classification consistency of a screening measure and (b) to evaluate how classification consistency is impacted by measurement bias across respondent groups. We provide R functions to conduct the procedures, illustrate the procedures with real data, and use Monte Carlo simulations to guide their appropriate use. Finally, we discuss how estimates of classification consistency can help assessment specialists make more informed decisions on the use of a screening measure with protected groups (e.g., groups defined by gender, race, or ethnicity). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33998821      PMCID: PMC8412438          DOI: 10.1037/pas0000938

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Assess        ISSN: 1040-3590


  22 in total

1.  Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations.

Authors:  Roger E Millsap; Oi-Man Kwok
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2004-03

2.  Sample Size in Factor Analysis: The Role of Model Error.

Authors:  R C MacCallum; K F Widaman; K J Preacher; S Hong
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 5.923

3.  Shortening the S-STAI: consequences for research and clinical practice.

Authors:  Peter M Kruyen; Wilco H M Emons; Klaas Sijtsma
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 3.006

4.  The validity and reliability of screening measures for depression and anxiety disorders in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Ruth Ann Marrie; Lixia Zhang; Lisa M Lix; Lesley A Graff; John R Walker; John D Fisk; Scott B Patten; Carol A Hitchon; James M Bolton; Jitender Sareen; Renée El-Gabalawy; James J Marriott; Charles N Bernstein
Journal:  Mult Scler Relat Disord       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  When Does Differential Item Functioning Matter for Screening? A Method for Empirical Evaluation.

Authors:  Oscar Gonzalez; William E Pelham
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2020-04-04

6.  Temporal stability of alcohol screening measures in a psychiatric setting.

Authors:  L M Teitelbaum; K B Carey
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2000-12

7.  Utilizing two-tiered screening for early detection of autism spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Meena Khowaja; Diana L Robins; Lauren B Adamson
Journal:  Autism       Date:  2017-09-14

8.  A primer on receiver operating characteristic analysis and diagnostic efficiency statistics for pediatric psychology: we are ready to ROC.

Authors:  Eric A Youngstrom
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2013-08-21

Review 9.  The center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: a review with a theoretical and empirical examination of item content and factor structure.

Authors:  R Nicholas Carleton; Michel A Thibodeau; Michelle J N Teale; Patrick G Welch; Murray P Abrams; Thomas Robinson; Gordon J G Asmundson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gemma Vilagut; Carlos G Forero; Gabriela Barbaglia; Jordi Alonso
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.