Dataset Information

What are the minimal sample size requirements for Mokken scaling? An empirical example with the Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: Sample size in Mokken scales is mostly studied on simulated data, reflected in the lack of consideration of sample size in most Mokken scaling studies. Recently, [Straat, J. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2014). Minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 809-822] provided minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis based on simulation. Our study uses real data from the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (N = 8463) to assess whether these hold. Methods: We use per element accuracy to evaluate the impact of sample size, with scaling coefficients and confidence intervals around scale, item and item pair scalability coefficients. Results: Per element accuracy, scalability coefficients, and confidence intervals around scalability coefficients are sensitive to sample size. The results from Straat et al. were not replicated; depending on the main goal of the research, sample sizes ranging from > 250 to > 1000 are needed. Conclusions: Using our pragmatic approach, some practical recommendations are made regarding sample sizes for studies of Mokken scaling.

SUBMITTER: Watson R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8114397 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What are the minimal sample size requirements for Mokken scaling? An empirical example with the Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale.

Watson Roger R Egberink Iris J L IJL Kirke Lisa L Tendeiro Jorge N JN Doyle Frank F

Health psychology and behavioral medicine 20180808 1

Purpose: Sample size in Mokken scales is mostly studied on simulated data, reflected in the lack of consideration of sample size in most Mokken scaling studies. Recently, [Straat, J. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2014). Minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 809-822] provided minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis based on simulation. Our study uses real data from the Warwick-Edi ...[more]

PMID: 34040828

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing international interest in the concept of mental well-being and its contribution to all aspects of human life. Demand for instruments to monitor mental well-being at a population level and evaluate mental health promotion initiatives is growing. This article describes the development and validation of a new scale, comprised only of positively worded items relating to different aspects of positive mental health: the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS).MethodsWEMWBS was developed by an expert panel drawing on current academic literature, qualitative research with focus groups, and psychometric testing of an existing scale. It was validated on a student and representative population sample. Content validity was assessed by reviewing the frequency of complete responses and the distribution of responses to each item. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the scale measured a single construct. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was explored in terms of correlations between WEMWBS and other scales and by testing whether the scale discriminated between population groups in line with pre-specified hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was assessed at one week using intra-class correlation coefficients. Susceptibility to bias was measured using the Balanced Inventory of Desired Responding.ResultsWEMWBS showed good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the single factor hypothesis. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.89 (student sample) and 0.91 (population sample) suggests some item redundancy in the scale. WEMWBS showed high correlations with other mental health and well-being scales and lower correlations with scales measuring overall health. Its distribution was near normal and the scale did not show ceiling effects in a population sample. It discriminated between population groups in a way that is largely consistent with the results of other population surveys. Test-retest reliability at one week was high (0.83). Social desirability bias was lower or similar to that of other comparable scales.ConclusionWEMWBS is a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive aspects of mental health. As a short and psychometrically robust scale, with no ceiling effects in a population sample, it offers promise as a tool for monitoring mental well-being at a population level. Whilst WEMWBS should appeal to those evaluating mental health promotion initiatives, it is important that the scale's sensitivity to change is established before it is recommended in this context.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to validate the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) among English speaking adults representing two of the minority ethnic groups living in the UK, self-identified as Chinese or Pakistani by background, in a mixed methods study.MethodsQuantitative data were collected in two cities in the West Midlands, UK. Item response, dimensionality, internal consistency, and construct validity of the WEMWBS were assessed in Chinese and Pakistani groups separately, using data from both cities combined.Qualitative data were collected in the first city in eight focus groups of different ages recruited by the community workers. Three mixed sex Chinese and five single sex Pakistani groups discussed ease of completion and comprehension of items, together with overall reactions to the scale and underlying concept.Results of quantitative and qualitative analysis were examined for commonalities and differences.ResultsItem completion and item total correlations were satisfactory in both groups. In the Chinese data, Exploratory Factor Analysis showed a single factor with loadings ranging from 0.60 to 0.82 for all 14 items. In the Pakistani data, three factors reached statistical significance; however, a substantial drop in eigenvalues between the first and second factors and the limited variance explained by the second and third factors supported a one-factor model. All items loaded on this factor from 0.51 to 0.83.In the Chinese and Pakistani data respectively, Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 (0.89 - 0.94) and 0.91 (0.88 - 0.94); Spearman's correlation with GHQ-12 was - 0.63 (-0.73 to -0.49) and -0.55 (-0.70 to -0.36), and with the WHO-5 0.62 (0.46-0.75) and 0.64 (0.50 to 0.76).Qualitative analysis revealed good comprehension and ease of completion of almost all items. Some culturally determined differences in understanding of mental well-being, which varied both between and within communities, emerged.ConclusionsThe WEMWBS was well received by members of both Pakistani and Chinese communities. It showed high levels of consistency and reliability compared with accepted criteria. Data were sufficiently strong to recommend the WEMWBS for use in general population surveys.

Project description:IntroductionThe Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) is a commonly used scale of mental wellbeing focusing entirely on the positive aspect of mental health. It has been widely used in a broad range of clinical and research settings, including to evaluate if interventions, programmes or pilots improve wellbeing. We aimed to systematically review all interventions that used WEMWBS and evaluate which interventions are the most effective at improving wellbeing.MethodsEligible populations included children and adults, with no health or age restrictions. Any intervention study was eligible if the wellbeing outcome was measured using the 7 or 14-item WEMWBS scale assessed both pre- and post-intervention. We identified eligible intervention studies using three approaches: a database search (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyschInfo and Web of Science from January 2007 to present), grey literature search, and by issuing a call for evidence. Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean differences in the intervention group were used to summarise intervention effects on WEMWBS score.ResultsWe identified 223 interventions across 209 studies, with a total of 53,834 participants across all studies. Five main themes of interventions were synthesised: psychological (n = 80); social (n = 54); arts, culture and environment (n = 29); physical health promotion (n = 18); and other (n = 28). Psychological interventions based on resilience, wellbeing or self-management techniques had the strongest effect on wellbeing. A broad range of other interventions were effective at improving mental wellbeing, including other psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoeducation and mindfulness. Medium to strong effects were also seen for person-centred support/advice (social), arts-based, parenting (social) and social prescribing interventions. However, a major limitation of the evidence was that only 75 (36%) of studies included a control group.ConclusionsWEMWBS has been widely used to assess wellbeing across a diverse range of interventions, settings and samples. Despite substantial heterogeneity in individual intervention design, delivery and groups targeted, results indicate that a broad range of intervention types can successfully improve wellbeing. Methodological changes, such as greater use of control groups in intervention evaluation, can help future researchers and policy makers further understand what works for mental wellbeing.

Dataset Information

What are the minimal sample size requirements for Mokken scaling? An empirical example with the Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale.

Publications

What are the minimal sample size requirements for Mokken scaling? An empirical example with the Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets