Estimating Difference-Score Reliability in Pretest–Posttest Settings

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Pub Date : 2021-02-15 DOI:10.3102/1076998620986948
Zhengguo Gu, W. Emons, K. Sijtsma
{"title":"Estimating Difference-Score Reliability in Pretest–Posttest Settings","authors":"Zhengguo Gu, W. Emons, K. Sijtsma","doi":"10.3102/1076998620986948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical, medical, and health psychologists use difference scores obtained from pretest–posttest designs employing the same test to assess intraindividual change possibly caused by an intervention addressing, for example, anxiety, depression, eating disorder, or addiction. Reliability of difference scores is important for interpreting observed change. This article compares the well-documented traditional method and the unfamiliar, rarely used item-level method for estimating difference-score reliability. We simulated data under various conditions that are typical of change assessment in pretest–posttest designs. The item-level method had smaller bias and greater precision than the traditional method and may be recommended for practical use.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"46 1","pages":"592 - 610"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998620986948","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Clinical, medical, and health psychologists use difference scores obtained from pretest–posttest designs employing the same test to assess intraindividual change possibly caused by an intervention addressing, for example, anxiety, depression, eating disorder, or addiction. Reliability of difference scores is important for interpreting observed change. This article compares the well-documented traditional method and the unfamiliar, rarely used item-level method for estimating difference-score reliability. We simulated data under various conditions that are typical of change assessment in pretest–posttest designs. The item-level method had smaller bias and greater precision than the traditional method and may be recommended for practical use.
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
评估测试前-测试后设置中的差异得分可靠性
临床、医学和健康心理学家使用从采用相同测试的前测-后测设计中获得的差异分数来评估可能由针对焦虑、抑郁、饮食障碍或成瘾的干预措施引起的个体内变化。差异得分的可靠性对于解释观察到的变化很重要。本文比较了文献丰富的传统方法和不熟悉、很少使用的项目级方法来估计差异得分的可靠性。我们模拟了各种条件下的数据,这些条件是前测-后测设计中变化评估的典型情况。与传统方法相比,项目级方法具有更小的偏差和更高的精度,可以推荐用于实际应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.
期刊最新文献
Improving Balance in Educational Measurement: A Legacy of E. F. Lindquist A Simple Technique Assessing Ordinal and Disordinal Interaction Effects A Comparison of Latent Semantic Analysis and Latent Dirichlet Allocation in Educational Measurement Sample Size Calculation and Optimal Design for Multivariate Regression-Based Norming Corrigendum to Power Approximations for Overall Average Effects in Meta-Analysis With Dependent Effect Sizes
×
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