Dataset Information

Questionnaire discrimination: (re)-introducing coefficient delta.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Questionnaires are used routinely in clinical research to measure health status and quality of life. Questionnaire measurements are traditionally formally assessed by indices of reliability (the degree of measurement error) and validity (the extent to which the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure). Neither of these indices assesses the degree to which the questionnaire is able to discriminate between individuals, an important aspect of measurement. This paper introduces and extends an existing index of a questionnaire's ability to distinguish between individuals, that is, the questionnaire's discrimination.

Methods

Ferguson (1949) 1 derived an index of test discrimination, coefficient delta, for psychometric tests with dichotomous (correct/incorrect) items. In this paper a general form of the formula, deltaG, is derived for the more general class of questionnaires allowing for several response choices. The calculation and characteristics of deltaG are then demonstrated using questionnaire data (GHQ-12) from 2003-2004 British Household Panel Survey (N = 14761). Coefficients for reliability (alpha) and discrimination (deltaG) are computed for two commonly-used GHQ-12 coding methods: dichotomous coding and four-point Likert-type coding.

Results

Both scoring methods were reliable (alpha > 0.88). However, deltaG was substantially lower (0.73) for the dichotomous coding of the GHQ-12 than for the Likert-type method (deltaG = 0.96), indicating that the dichotomous coding, although reliable, failed to discriminate between individuals.

Conclusion

Coefficient deltaG was shown to have decisive utility in distinguishing between the cross-sectional discrimination of two equally reliable scoring methods. Ferguson's delta has been neglected in discussions of questionnaire design and performance, perhaps because it has not been implemented in software and was restricted to questionnaires with dichotomous items, which are rare in health care research. It is suggested that the more general formula introduced here is reported as deltaG, to avoid the implication that items are dichotomously coded.

SUBMITTER: Hankins M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1884165 | biostudies-literature | 2007 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Questionnaire discrimination: (re)-introducing coefficient delta.

Hankins Matthew M

BMC medical research methodology 20070518

<h4>Background</h4>Questionnaires are used routinely in clinical research to measure health status and quality of life. Questionnaire measurements are traditionally formally assessed by indices of reliability (the degree of measurement error) and validity (the extent to which the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure). Neither of these indices assesses the degree to which the questionnaire is able to discriminate between individuals, an important aspect of measurement. This paper ...[more]

PMID: 17511862

Similar Datasets

Project description:We aimed to develop and test a tool based on the re-weighted range voting mechanism to prioritize items (i.e. key questions) in a priority-setting assessment for clinical practice guidelines. The secondary aim was to provide methodological context of the tool. We iteratively developed the tool and used qualitative methods (i.e. think-aloud and semi-structured interviews) to test the tool's usability and make adjustments accordingly. An observational approach was used to test the tool's outcome satisfaction in a real-world priority-setting assessment within a rare-disease guideline of a European Reference Network and under four different conditions in the tool. Four guideline methodologists tested the usability of the tool. The real-world testing was performed with a guideline panel consisting of a core working group, five expertise working groups, and a working group with patient representatives. Thirty-one panel members assigned scores in the priority-setting assessment. Seventeen panel members rated the priority-setting outcome, and sixteen panel members rated the outputs generated under the four conditions. Upon initial use, guideline methodologists found the tool to be quite overwhelming. However, with some initial effort they were able to easily identify the tool's structure. Based on observations and feedback, the tool was further refined and user guidance was developed. Guideline panel members expressed (high) satisfaction with the priority-setting outcome. They particularly preferred the condition when using mean subgroup scores as input or employing aggressive penalties in the weighting method to determine the outputs. The tool generates a ranked list of items and offers flexibility for different choices in priority-setting assessments as long as its input format requirements are met. Although it is not a consensus method, the tool assists in narrowing down a set of priority items. Additional steps in the priority-setting assessment can lead to a consensus being reached regarding the final outcome.

Project description:BackgroundThe anticipation of mental health-related discrimination is common amongst people with mental health problems and can have serious adverse effects. This study aimed to develop and validate a measure assessing the extent to which people with mental health problems anticipate that they will personally experience discrimination across a range of contexts.MethodsThe items and format for the Questionnaire on Anticipated Discrimination (QUAD) were developed from previous versions of the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC), focus groups and cognitive debriefing interviews which were used to further refine the content and format. The resulting provisional version of the QUAD was completed by 117 service users in an online survey and reliability, validity, precision and acceptability were assessed. A final version of the scale was agreed and analyses re-run using the online survey data and data from an independent sample to report the psychometric properties of the finalised scale.ResultsThe provisional version of the QUAD had 17 items, good internal consistency (alpha = 0.86) and adequate convergent validity as supported by the significant positive correlations with the Stigma Scale (SS) (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) and the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness Scale (ISMI) (r = 0.40, p < 0.001). Three items were removed due to low endorsements, high inter-correlation or conceptual concerns. The finalised 14 item QUAD had good internal consistency (alpha = 0.86), good test re-test reliability (?(c) = 0.81) and adequate convergent validity: correlations with the ISMI (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) and with the SS (r = 0.39, p < 0.001). Reading ease scores indicated good acceptability for general adult populations. Cross-replication in an independent sample further indicated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.88), adequate convergent validity and revealed two factors summarised by institutions/services and interpersonal/professional relationships.ConclusionsThe QUAD expanded upon previous versions of the DISC. It is a reliable, valid and acceptable measure which can be used to identify key life areas in which people may personally anticipate discrimination, and an overall tendency to anticipate discrimination. It may also be useful in planning interventions aimed at reducing the stigma of mental illness.

Project description:Stable isotope analysis of diet has become a common tool in conservation research. However, the multiple sources of uncertainty inherent in this analysis framework involve consequences that have not been thoroughly addressed. Uncertainty arises from the choice of trophic discrimination factors, and for Bayesian stable isotope mixing models (SIMMs), the specification of prior information; the combined effect of these aspects has not been explicitly tested. We used a captive feeding study of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to determine the first experimentally-derived trophic discrimination factors of C and N for this large carnivore of broad conservation interest. Using the estimated diet in our controlled system and data from a published study on wild wolves and their prey in Montana, USA, we then investigated the simultaneous effect of discrimination factors and prior information on diet reconstruction with Bayesian SIMMs. Discrimination factors for gray wolves and their prey were 1.97‰ for δ13C and 3.04‰ for δ15N. Specifying wolf discrimination factors, as opposed to the commonly used red fox (Vulpes vulpes) factors, made little practical difference to estimates of wolf diet, but prior information had a strong effect on bias, precision, and accuracy of posterior estimates. Without specifying prior information in our Bayesian SIMM, it was not possible to produce SIMM posteriors statistically similar to the estimated diet in our controlled study or the diet of wild wolves. Our study demonstrates the critical effect of prior information on estimates of animal diets using Bayesian SIMMs, and suggests species-specific trophic discrimination factors are of secondary importance. When using stable isotope analysis to inform conservation decisions researchers should understand the limits of their data. It may be difficult to obtain useful information from SIMMs if informative priors are omitted and species-specific discrimination factors are unavailable.

Dataset Information

Questionnaire discrimination: (re)-introducing coefficient delta.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Questionnaire discrimination: (re)-introducing coefficient delta.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets