Psychometric Analysis of the Social Communication Questionnaire Using an Item-Response Theory Framework: Implications for the Use of the Lifetime and Current Forms

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianlan Wei ◽  
Steven Randall Chesnut ◽  
Lucy Barnard-Brak ◽  
David Richman
2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. 1916-1932 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiying Yuan ◽  
Christine Dollaghan

Purpose No diagnostic tools exist for identifying social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SPCD), a new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition category for individuals with social communication deficits but not the repetitive, restricted behaviors and interests (RRBIs) that would qualify them for a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We explored the value of items from a widely used screening measure of ASD for distinguishing SPCD from typical controls (TC; Aim 1) and from ASD (Aim 2). Method We applied item response theory (IRT) modeling to Social Communication Questionnaire–Lifetime ( Rutter, Bailey, & Lord, 2003 ) records available in the National Database for Autism Research. We defined records from putative SPCD ( n = 54), ASD ( n = 278), and TC ( n = 274) groups retrospectively, based on National Database for Autism Research classifications and Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised responses. After assessing model assumptions, estimating model parameters, and measuring model fit, we identified items in the social communication and RRBI domains that were maximally informative in differentiating the groups. Results IRT modeling identified a set of seven social communication items that distinguished SPCD from TC with sensitivity and specificity > 80%. A set of five RRBI items was less successful in distinguishing SPCD from ASD (sensitivity and specificity < 70%). Conclusion The IRT modeling approach and the Social Communication Questionnaire–Lifetime item sets it identified may be useful in efforts to construct screening and diagnostic measures for SPCD.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 792-801
Author(s):  
Itamar Stein ◽  
Maya Asher ◽  
Shahaf Erez ◽  
Tomer Shechner ◽  
Sofi Marom ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alenka Hauptman

In Slovene General Matura, Mathematics is one of the compulsory subjects and it can be taken either at Basic or Higher Level of Achievement. Basic Level of Achievement is expressed by the classic five-grade scale from 1 to 5. Candidates at Higher Level of Achievement can get grades on scale from 1 to 8. Conversion of points into grades (i.e. getting points on tests and points at internal examination and then calculating those grades from the sum of points) on each Level is set independently, and we tried to find out if the same grade on each Level of Achievement corresponds to the same knowledge. Once grades are assigned they are used comparatively in selection procedures for admission to University. Both Basic and Higher Level in Mathematics include the same Part 1 of the exam. The second part of the exam (Part 2) is applied only to the Higher Level's candidates. Part 1 amounts to 80% of the total points at Basic Level, and 53.3% of total points at Higher Level. Higher Level's candidates get other 26.7% of points in Part 2. Oral part of the exam represents 20% of the grades at both Levels. In this paper we show discrepancy between knowledge within the same grades for candidates at Basic and Higher Level of Achievement on an example of a Mathematics exam from General Matura 2008. Rasch model within Item Response Theory framework was used to place item difficulties on common scale and the comparability of grade conversion on both Basic and Higher Level of Achievement was explored. The results show interesting differences in knowledge of candidates with the same grade at Basic and Higher Level of Achievement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document