Information theory, machine learning, and Bayesian networks in the analysis of dichotomous and Likert responses for questionnaire psychometric validation.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1037/met0000713
Matteo Orsoni, Mariagrazia Benassi, Marco Scutari
{"title":"Information theory, machine learning, and Bayesian networks in the analysis of dichotomous and Likert responses for questionnaire psychometric validation.","authors":"Matteo Orsoni, Mariagrazia Benassi, Marco Scutari","doi":"10.1037/met0000713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Questionnaire validation is indispensable in psychology and medicine and is essential for understanding differences across diverse populations in the measured construct. While traditional latent factor models have long dominated psychometric validation, recent advancements have introduced alternative methodologies, such as the \"network framework.\" This study presents a pioneering approach integrating information theory, machine learning (ML), and Bayesian networks (BNs) into questionnaire validation. Our proposed framework considers psychological constructs as complex, causally interacting systems, bridging theories, and empirical hypotheses. We emphasize the crucial link between questionnaire items and theoretical frameworks, validated through the known-groups method for effective differentiation of clinical and nonclinical groups. Information theory measures such as Jensen-Shannon divergence distance and ML for item selection enhance discriminative power while contextually reducing respondent burden. BNs are employed to uncover conditional dependences between items, illuminating the intricate systems underlying psychological constructs. Through this integrated framework encompassing item selection, theory formulation, and construct validation stages, we empirically validate our method on two simulated data sets-one with dichotomous and the other with Likert-scale data-and a real data set. Our approach demonstrates effectiveness in standard questionnaire research and validation practices, providing insights into criterion validity, content validity, and construct validity of the instrument. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000713","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questionnaire validation is indispensable in psychology and medicine and is essential for understanding differences across diverse populations in the measured construct. While traditional latent factor models have long dominated psychometric validation, recent advancements have introduced alternative methodologies, such as the "network framework." This study presents a pioneering approach integrating information theory, machine learning (ML), and Bayesian networks (BNs) into questionnaire validation. Our proposed framework considers psychological constructs as complex, causally interacting systems, bridging theories, and empirical hypotheses. We emphasize the crucial link between questionnaire items and theoretical frameworks, validated through the known-groups method for effective differentiation of clinical and nonclinical groups. Information theory measures such as Jensen-Shannon divergence distance and ML for item selection enhance discriminative power while contextually reducing respondent burden. BNs are employed to uncover conditional dependences between items, illuminating the intricate systems underlying psychological constructs. Through this integrated framework encompassing item selection, theory formulation, and construct validation stages, we empirically validate our method on two simulated data sets-one with dichotomous and the other with Likert-scale data-and a real data set. Our approach demonstrates effectiveness in standard questionnaire research and validation practices, providing insights into criterion validity, content validity, and construct validity of the instrument. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Improving the probability of reaching correct conclusions about congruence hypotheses: Integrating statistical equivalence testing into response surface analysis. Evaluating statistical fit of confirmatory bifactor models: Updated recommendations and a review of current practice. Is a less wrong model always more useful? Methodological considerations for using ant colony optimization in measure development. Information theory, machine learning, and Bayesian networks in the analysis of dichotomous and Likert responses for questionnaire psychometric validation. Meta-analyzing nonpreregistered and preregistered studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1