nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

09.03.2019

Supporting construct validity of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire using Linear Logistic Test Models

verfasst von: Núria Duran Adroher, Alan Tennant

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Construct validity is commonly assessed by applying statistical methods to data. However, purely empirical methods cannot explain what happens between the attribute and the instrument scores, which is the core of construct validity. Linear Logistic Test Models (LLTMs) can provide such explanation by decomposing item difficulties into a weighted sum of theoretical item properties. In this study, we aim to support construct validity of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) by using item properties accounting for item difficulties.

Methods

Dichotomized responses to the EDAQ were analyzed with (1) the Rasch model (to estimate item difficulties), and (2) LLTMs (to predict item difficulties). Seven properties of the items were identified and rated in ordinal scales by 39 Occupational Therapists worldwide. Aggregated metric estimates—the weights used to predict item difficulties in LLTMs—were derived from the ratings using seven cumulative link mixed models. Estimated and predicted item difficulties were compared.

Results

The Rasch model showed acceptable fit and unidimensionality for a sample of 42 locally independent EDAQ items. The LLTM plus error showed significantly better fit than the LLTM. In the former, three of the seven properties were not significant, and the corresponding model including only the significant properties was used to predict item difficulties; they explained 77.5% of the variance in estimated item difficulties.

Conclusion

A satisfactory theoretical explanation of what makes an activity of daily living task more difficult than another has been provided by a LLTM plus error model, therefore supporting construct validity of the EDAQ.

Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRef

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957.CrossRefPubMed

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.4.1061.CrossRefPubMed

Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.1.179.CrossRef

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.50.9.741.CrossRef

Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x.CrossRef

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. København: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

10.

Stenner, J. A., & Smith M. III (1982). Testing construct theories. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 415–426.CrossRef

11.

Stenner, J. A., Smith M. A. III, Burdick D. S. (1983). Toward a theory of construct definition. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 305–316.CrossRef

12.

Arthur, G. (1947). A point scale of performance tests. New York: Psychological Corp.

13.

Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37(6), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(73)90003-6.CrossRef

14.

Baghaei, P., & Kubinger, K. D. (2015). Linear logistic test modeling with R. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 20, 1–11.

15.

Janssen, R., Schepers, J., & Peres, D. (2004). Models with item and item group predictors. In P. De Boeck & M. Wilson (Eds.), Explanatory item response models. New York: Springer.

16.

Green, K. E., & Smith, R. M. (1987). A comparison of two methods of decomposing item difficulties. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165055.CrossRef

17.

Hartig, J., Frey, A., Nold, G., & Klieme, E. (2012). An application of explanatory item response modeling for model-based proficiency scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411430707.CrossRef

18.

Kubinger, K. D. (1979). Das Problemlöseverhalten bei der statistischen Auswertung psychologischer Experimente. Ein Beispiel hochschuldidaktischer Forschung. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 26, 467–496.

19.

Zeuch, N., Holling, H., & Kuhn, J. T. (2011). Analysis of the Latin square task with linear logistic test models. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 629–632.CrossRef

20.

Sonn, U., Törnquist, K., & Svensson, E. (1999). The ADL taxonomy—From individual categorical data to ordinal categorical data. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/110381299443807.CrossRef

21.

Fong, T. G., Gleason, L. J., Wong, B., Habtemariam, D., Jones, R. N., Schmitt, E. M., et al. (2015). Cognitive and physical demands of activities of daily living in older adults: Validation of expert panel ratings. PM R, 7(7), 727–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.01.018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Hammond, A., Tennant, A., Tyson, S. F., Nordenskiold, U., Hawkins, R., & Prior, Y. (2015). The reliability and validity of the English version of the evaluation of daily activity questionnaire for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 54(9), 1605–1615. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kev008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO). Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn1515102.

24.

Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). Rasch models for measurement: RUMM2030. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty, Ltd.

25.

Smith, E. V. Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.PubMed

26.

Fischer, G. H. (1995). Rasch models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer.CrossRef

27.

Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

28.

Christensen, R. (2015). A tutorial on fitting cumulative link mixed models with clmm2 from the ordinal package. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clmm2_tutorial.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2018.

29.

Agresti, A. (2012). Analysis of ordinal categorical data (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

30.

De Boeck, P., Bakker, M., Zwitser, R., & Nivard, M. (2011). The estimation of item response models with the lmer function from the lme4 package in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 39(12), 1–28.CrossRef

31.

De Boeck, P., Cho, S. J., & Wilson, M. (2016). Explanatory item response models. In A. A. Rupp, & J. P. Leighton (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment: Frameworks, methodologies, and applications. New Jersey: Wiley.

32.

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software; 67(1), 1–48.CrossRef

33.

Doran, H., Bates, D., Bliese, P., & Dowling, M. (2007). Estimating the multilevel Rasch model: With the lme4 package. Journal of Statistical software, 20(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i02.CrossRef

34.

De Boeck, P. (2008). Random item IRT models. Psycometrika, 73(4), 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9092-x.CrossRef

35.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.

36.

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136.CrossRef

37.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRef

38.

Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Applied regression analysis (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.CrossRef

39.

Ludlow, L., & Klein, K. (2014). Suppressor variables: The difference between ‘is’ versus ‘acting as’. Journal of Statistics Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2014.11889703.CrossRef

40.

Fischer, G. H., & Formann, A. K. (1982). Some applications of logistic latent trait models with linear constraints on the parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168200600403.CrossRef

Titel: Supporting construct validity of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire using Linear Logistic Test Models
verfasst von: Núria Duran Adroher
Alan Tennant
Publikationsdatum: 09.03.2019
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02146-4

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

Development and validation of the caregiver roles and responsibilities scale in cancer caregivers

Health-related quality of life among children, adolescents, and adults with bladder exstrophy–epispadias complex: a systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future research

Nonrestorative sleep scale: reliable and valid for the Chinese population

Multidimensionality of the PROMIS self-efficacy measure for managing chronic conditions

Using health-related quality of life to predict cardiovascular disease events

The combined polymorphisms of interleukin-6-174GG genotype and interleukin-10 ATA haplotype are associated with a poor quality of life in patients with chronic hepatitis C