scholarly journals Measuring Income (In)equality: Comparing Survey Questions With Unipolar and Bipolar Scales in a Probability-Based Online Panel

2020 ◽  
pp. 089443932090246
Author(s):  
Jan Karem Höhne ◽  
Dagmar Krebs ◽  
Steffen-M. Kühnel
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Response Behavior ◽  
Online Panel ◽  
Bipolar Scale ◽  
Scale Characteristics ◽  
Different Response

In social science research, unipolar and bipolar scales are commonly used methods in measuring respondents’ attitudes and opinions. Compared to other rating scale characteristics, scale polarity (unipolar and bipolar) and its effects on response behavior have rarely been addressed in previous research. To fill this gap in the literature, we investigate whether and to what extent fully verbalized unipolar and bipolar scales influence response behavior by analyzing observed and latent response distributions and latent thresholds of response categories. For this purpose, we conducted a survey experiment in a probability-based online panel and randomly assigned respondents to a unipolar or bipolar scale condition. The results reveal substantial differences between the two rating scales. They show significantly different response distributions and measurement non-invariance. In addition, response categories (and latent thresholds) of unipolar and bipolar scales are not equally distributed. The findings show that responses to unipolar and bipolar scales differ not only on the observational level but also on the latent level. Both rating scales vary with respect to their measurement properties, so that the responses obtained using each scale are not easily comparable. We recommend not considering unipolar and bipolar scales as interchangeable.

scholarly journals Functional Rating Scales in Spinal and Bulbar Muscular Atrophy: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Critical Appraisal of their Measurement Properties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agessandro Abrahao ◽  
LIANE PHUNG ◽  
Eliza Freitas ◽  
Cornelia M Borkhoff ◽  
Lorne Zinman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Muscular Atrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Dysfunction ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Spinal Bulbar Muscular Atrophy

Tracking disease progression and treatment effect of spinal bulbar muscular atrophy, or Kennedy's disease, is challenging given its slowly progressive nature. To achieve success in SBMA clinical trials, a reliable, responsive, and validated patient-reported motor function scale must capture progression of SBMA-specific motor dysfunction. Here, we conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and appraisal of core measurement properties of the SBMA functional rating scale (SBMAFRS). We established that the SBMAFRS has satisfactory internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and construct validity for measuring progressive motor dysfunction over similar neurodegenerative motor function scales but inadequate sensitivity to change over time. Further development to validate and improve the SBMAFRS' ability to capture longitudinal responsiveness in larger cohorts is warranted.

scholarly journals Comparison of Two Rating Scales With the Orofacial Esthetic Scale and Practical Recommendations for Its Application.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swaha Pattanaik ◽  
Mike John ◽  
Seungwon Chung ◽  
San Keller
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Response Format ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Cronbach’S Alpha ◽  
External Criterion ◽  
Cronbach's Alpha ◽  
Response Formats ◽  
Different Response

Abstract PurposeWe compared measurement properties of 5-point and 11-point response formats for Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) items to determine whether collapsing the format would degrade OES score precision.MethodsData were collected from a consecutive sample of adult dental patients from HealthPartners dental clinics in Minnesota (N=2,078). We fitted an Item Response Theory (IRT) model to the 11-point scale and six, derived 5-point scales. We compared all response formats using test (or scale) information, correlation between the IRT scores, Cronbach’s alpha estimates for each scaling format, correlations based on the observed scores for the seven OES items and the eighth global item, and the relationship of observed and IRT scores to an external criterion using orofacial appearance (OA) indicators from the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP).ResultsThe correlations among scores based on the different response formats were uniformly high for observed (0.97-0.99) and IRT scores (0.96-0.99); as were correlations of both observed and IRT scores and the OHIP measure of OA (0.65-0.69). Cronbach’s alpha based on any of the 5-point formats (α = 0.95) was nearly the same as that based on the 11-point format (α = 0.96). The weighted total information area for five of six, 5-point derived formats was 98% of that for the 11-point scale ConclusionsOur results support the use of scores based on a 5-point response format for OES items. The measurement properties of scores based on a 5-point response format are comparable to those of scores based on the 11-point format.

Rating Scales in Accounting Research: The Impact of Scale Points and Labels

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Eutsler ◽  
Bradley Lang
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Statistical Characteristics ◽  
Accounting Research ◽  
Response Data ◽  
Resultant Data ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Scale Characteristics ◽  
Scale Design ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Rating scales are one of the most widely used tools in behavioral research. Decisions regarding scale design can have a potentially profound effect on research findings. Despite this importance, an analysis of extant literature in top accounting journals reveals a wide variety of rating scale compositions. The purpose of this paper is to experimentally investigate the impact of scale characteristics on participants' responses. Two experiments are conducted that manipulate the number of scale points and the corresponding labels to study their influence on the statistical properties of the resultant data. Results suggest that scale design impacts the statistical characteristics of response data and emphasize the importance of labeling all scale points. A scale with all points labeled effectively minimizes response bias, maximizes variance, maximizes power, and minimizes error. This analysis also suggests variance may be maximized when the scale length is set at 7 points. Although researchers commonly believe using additional scale points will maximize variance, results indicate increasing scale points beyond 7 does not increase variance. Taken together, a fully labeled 7-point scale may provide the greatest benefits to researchers. The importance of scale labels provides a significant contribution to accounting research as only 5 percent of the accounting studies reviewed have reported scales with all points labeled.

Development of a Comprehensive Outcome Measure for Motor Coordination; Step 1: Three-Phase Content Validity Process

2020 ◽  
pp. 154596832098195
Author(s):  
Sandra R. Alouche ◽  
Roni Molad ◽  
Marika Demers ◽  
Mindy F. Levin
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Motor Coordination ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Arm Movement ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Movement Quality ◽  
Neurological Injuries

Background Motor coordination, the ability to produce context-dependent organized movements in spatial and temporal domains, is impaired after neurological injuries. Outcome measures assessing coordination mostly quantify endpoint performance variables (ie, temporal qualities of whole arm movement) but not movement quality (ie, trunk and arm joint displacements). Objective To develop an outcome measure to assess coordination of multiple body segments at both endpoint trajectory and movement quality levels, based on observational kinematics, in adults with neurological injuries. Methods A 3-phase study was used to develop the Comprehensive Coordination Scale (CCS): instrument development, Delphi process, and focus group meeting. The CCS was constructed from common tests used in clinical practice and research. Rating scales for different behavioral elements were developed to guide analysis. For content validation, 8 experts (ie, neurological clinicians/researchers) answered questionnaires about relevance, comprehension, and feasibility of each test and rating scale. A focus group conducted with 6 of 8 experts obtained consensus on rating scale and instruction wording, and identified gaps. Three additional experts reviewed the revised CCS content to obtain a final version. Results Experts identified a gap regarding assessment of hand/finger coordination. The CCS final version is composed of 6 complementary tests of coordination: finger-to-nose, arm-trunk, finger, lower extremity, and 2- and 4-limb interlimb coordination. Constructs include spatial and temporal variables totaling 69 points. Higher scores indicate better performance. Conclusions The CCS may be an important, understandable and feasible outcome measure to assess spatial and temporal coordination. CCS measurement properties are presented in the companion article.

scholarly journals Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale in clinical practice: Psychometric properties on Serbian patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (11) ◽  
pp. 1119-1125
Author(s):  
Petar Vojvodic ◽  
Ana Andonov ◽  
Dejan Stevanovic ◽  
Ivana Perunicic-Mladenovic ◽  
Goran Mihajlovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Everyday Clinical Practice ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Serbian Version ◽  
Explained Variance ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Background/Aim. Various rating scales for depression are avalable, but the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is one of the most frequently used scales. The aim of this study was to analyze the measurement properties of the MADRS Serbian version for quantifying depression severity in the clinical setting. Methods. Two studies have been conducted in order to validate the MADRS. The first study included sixty-four adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), with test-retest situ-ation, and the second one included 19 participants (also with MDD), who had six test-retest situations. Psychomet-ric evaluation included descriptive analysis, internal con-sistency and test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity (correlations with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17 ? HAMD-17). Results. The internal consistency for test-retest reliability was 0.93 in total for the MADRS, and for six test-retest situations was 0.95. The MADRS had one fac-tor structure, with explained variance of 66.26% for the first testing, and 61.29% for the retest. There were statistical sig-nificant correlations between the MADRS and HAMD-17 (r = 0.96 for test and r = 0.94 for retest). Also, it was shown a great correlation between all items on the MADRS, and for the instrument in total (r = 0.89). Conclusion. The MADRS was shown good statistical results, and it could be used in everyday clinical practice for discriminating MDD.

AAC Collaboration Using the Self-Anchored Rating Scales (SARS): An Aphasia Case Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 136-143
Author(s):  
Lynn E. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Therapeutic Process ◽  
Family Counseling ◽  
The Self ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Her Family ◽  
Solution Focused

Abstract The self-anchored rating scale (SARS) is a technique that augments collaboration between Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) interventionists, their clients, and their clients' support networks. SARS is a technique used in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, a branch of systemic family counseling. It has been applied to treating speech and language disorders across the life span, and recent case studies show it has promise for promoting adoption and long-term use of high and low tech AAC. I will describe 2 key principles of solution-focused therapy and present 7 steps in the SARS process that illustrate how clinicians can use the SARS to involve a person with aphasia and his or her family in all aspects of the therapeutic process. I will use a case study to illustrate the SARS process and present outcomes for one individual living with aphasia.

Childbirth and Posttraumatic Stress Responses

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eelco Olde ◽  
Rolf J. Kleber ◽  
Onno van der Hart ◽  
Victor J.M. Pop
Keyword(s):  
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Stress Responses ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Stress Disorder ◽  
Traumatic Experience ◽  
Event Scale ◽  
Self Rating ◽  
The Impact

Childbirth has been identified as a possible traumatic experience, leading to traumatic stress responses and even to the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The current study investigated the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) in a group of women who recently gave birth (N = 435). In addition, a comparison was made between the original IES and the IES-R. The scale showed high internal consistency (α = 0.88). Using confirmatory factor analysis no support was found for a three-factor structure of an intrusion, an avoidance, and a hyperarousal factor. Goodness of fit was only reasonable, even after fitting one intrusion item on the hyperarousal scale. The IES-R correlated significantly with scores on depression and anxiety self-rating scales, as well as with scores on a self-rating scale of posttraumatic stress disorder. Although the IES-R can be used for studying posttraumatic stress reactions in women who recently gave birth, the original IES proved to be a better instrument compared to the IES-R. It is concluded that adding the hyperarousal scale to the IES-R did not make the scale stronger.

D-test: A New Test for Analyzing Scale Invariance Using Symbolic Dynamics and Symbolic Entropy

Methodology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose A. Martínez ◽  
Manuel Ruiz Marín
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Dynamics ◽  
Scale Invariance ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Marketing Research ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Improve Measurement ◽  
Entropy Measures ◽  
The Difference

The aim of this study is to improve measurement in marketing research by constructing a new, simple, nonparametric, consistent, and powerful test to study scale invariance. The test is called D-test. D-test is constructed using symbolic dynamics and symbolic entropy as a measure of the difference between the response patterns which comes from two measurement scales. We also give a standard asymptotic distribution of our statistic. Given that the test is based on entropy measures, it avoids smoothed nonparametric estimation. We applied D-test to a real marketing research to study if scale invariance holds when measuring service quality in a sports service. We considered a free-scale as a reference scale and then we compared it with three widely used rating scales: Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 and from 1 to 7, and semantic-differential scale from −3 to +3. Scale invariance holds for the two latter scales. This test overcomes the shortcomings of other procedures for analyzing scale invariance; and it provides researchers a tool to decide the appropriate rating scale to study specific marketing problems, and how the results of prior studies can be questioned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document