Development of mobile CAT for patient feedback on pediatric consultations based on Rasch analysis of online techniques

The Rasch Rating Scale Model (RSM) is widely used in questionnaire analysis, providing insights into how individuals respond to item-level stimuli. Existing software for Rasch RSM parameter estimation, while powerful, often presents a steep learning curve. An accessible online tool can greatly benefit novice users, particularly students and clinicians, by simplifying the analytical process. This study introduces an online tool, an intuitive online RSM analysis tool designed to facilitate questionnaire data analysis for applied researchers, students, and clinicians. The online tool employs the joint maximum likelihood method for estimation, yielding estimates, standard errors (SE), and fit statistics iteratively. A unique feature of the tool is its ability to visualize estimates on Google Maps with an opacity setting of 0, enhancing data interpretation through a user-friendly interface. This study outlines the estimation process and key features, employing data from 200 proxy participants who answered 20 5-point questions regarding doctor-patient and doctor-family interactions in pediatric consultations. Mobile computerized adaptive testing (CAT) was employed. The online tool offers 5 essential visual displays often utilized in Rasch analyses, including the Wright Map, KIDMAP, category probability curve, performance plot, and differential item functioning (DIF) graph. DIF analysis revealed that 2 items, concerning the doctor attentiveness and empathy toward the child illness, exhibited differences in female proxy participants' responses, indicating lower satisfaction with pediatricians. The online tool emerges as a user-friendly and efficient RSM analysis tool with notable advantages for newcomers, improving data visualization and comprehension. Its capacity to pinpoint key areas of concern, such as gender-related satisfaction disparities among proxy participants, enhances its utility in questionnaire analysis. The online tool holds promise as a valuable resource for researchers, students, and clinicians seeking accessible Rasch analysis solutions.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the long-term quality of life questionnaire

Purpose

The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish Long-Term Quality of Life (LTQL) questionnaire.

Methods

The LTQL was initially translated into Spanish and cross-culturally adapted based on established guidelines. The Spanish LTQL was administered to patients with breast cancer who had completed their initial treatment 5 years earlier, along with other self-report measures: Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and EORT-QLQ-BR23. Reliability was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest. Convergent and known-groups validity were examined. Structural validity as determined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analyses was used to assess the unidimensionality and item-functioning of the LTQL domains.

Results

Cronbach's alpha were above 0.7 in all domains. Test-retest coefficients were between 0.72 to 0.96 for LTQL domains. LTQL total score was correlated with others total scores of other measures: QLACS (r=-0.39), HADS depression (r=-0.57), HADS anxiety (-0.45) and EORTC-QLQ-BR23 (r=-0.50). CFA provided satisfactory fit indices, with RMSEA value of 0.077 and TLI and CFI values of 0.901 and 0.909, respectively. All factor loadings were higher than 0.40 and statistically significant (P<0.001). Rasch analysis showed that Somatic Concerns domain had 4 misfitting items, and Philosophical/Spiritual View of Life and social Support domains only 1 misfit item. However, unidimensionality was supported for the four domains.

Conclusion

The findings support the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of LTQL questionnaire to be used in long-term cancer female survivors.

Using Rasch measurement to score, evaluate, and improve examinations in an anatomy course

Any examination that involves moderate to high stakes implications for examinees should be psychometrically sound and legally defensible. Currently, there are two broad and competing families of test theories that are used to score examination data. The majority of instructors outside the high-stakes testing arena rely on classical test theory (CTT) methods. However, advances in item response theory software have made the application of these techniques much more accessible to classroom instructors. The purpose of this research is to analyze a common medical school anatomy examination using both the traditional CTT scoring method and a Rasch measurement scoring method to determine which technique provides more robust findings, and which set of psychometric indicators will be more meaningful and useful for anatomists looking to improve the psychometric quality and functioning of their examinations. Results produced by the more robust and meaningful methodology will undergo a rigorous psychometric validation process to evaluate construct validity. Implications of these techniques and additional possibilities for advanced applications are also discussed.

Measuring engagement in deliberate self-harm behaviours: psychometric evaluation of six scales

BACKGROUND

Engagement in Deliberate Self-Harm (DSH) is commonly measured by behavioural scales comprised of specific methods of self-harm. However, there is a scarcity of information about the degree to which the methods relate to the same DSH construct although such scales are routinely used to provide a DSH total score. This study addresses the shortfall by evaluating the dimensionality of six commonly used behavioural measures of DSH.

METHODS

The DSH measures were Self-Injury Questionnaire Treatment Related (SIQTR), Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview (SITBI), Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (DSHI), Inventory of Statements About Self-Injury (ISAS), Self-Harm Information Form (SHIF) and Self-Harm Inventory (SHI). The behavioural scales contained in each measure were administered to 568 young Australians aged 18 to 30 years (62% university students, 21% mental health patients, and 17% community members). Scale quality was examined against the stringent standards for unidimensional measurement provided by the Rasch model.

RESULTS

According to the stringent post-hoc tests provided by the Rasch measurement model, there is support for the unidimensionality of the items contained within each of the scales. All six scales contained items with differential item functioning, four scales contained items with local response dependency, and one item was grossly misfitting (due to a lack of discrimination).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of behavioural scales to measure a DSH construct, justifies the summing of items to form a total DSH score, informs the hierarchy of DSH methods in each scale, and extends the previous evidence for reliability and external validity (as provided by test developers) to a more complete account of scale quality. Given the overall adequacy of all six scales, clinicians and researchers are recommended to select the scale that best matches their adopted definition of DSH.