心理健康护理中自我报告工具的通用测量量表

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED European Journal of Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2022-12-16 DOI:10.1027/1015-5759/a000740
E. de Beurs, S. Oudejans, B. Terluin
{"title":"心理健康护理中自我报告工具的通用测量量表","authors":"E. de Beurs, S. Oudejans, B. Terluin","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The diversity of measures in clinical psychology hampers a straightforward interpretation of test results, complicates communication with the patient, and constitutes a challenge to the implementation of measurement-based care. In educational research and assessment, it is common practice to convert test scores to a common metric, such as T scores. We recommend applying this also in clinical psychology and propose and test a procedure to arrive at T scores approximating a normal distribution that can be applied to individual test scores. We established formulas to estimate normalized T scores from raw scale scores by regressing IRT-based θ scores on raw scores. With data from a large population and clinical samples, we established crosswalk formulas. Their validity was investigated by comparing calculated T scores with IRT-based T scores. IRT and formulas yielded very similar T scores, supporting the validity of the latter approach. Theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of both approaches to convert scores to common metrics and alternative approaches are discussed. Provided that scale characteristics allow for their computation, T scores will help to better understand measurement results, which makes it easier for patients and practitioners to use test results in joint decision-making about the course of treatment.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Common Measurement Scale for Self-Report Instruments in Mental Health Care\",\"authors\":\"E. de Beurs, S. Oudejans, B. Terluin\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1015-5759/a000740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. The diversity of measures in clinical psychology hampers a straightforward interpretation of test results, complicates communication with the patient, and constitutes a challenge to the implementation of measurement-based care. In educational research and assessment, it is common practice to convert test scores to a common metric, such as T scores. We recommend applying this also in clinical psychology and propose and test a procedure to arrive at T scores approximating a normal distribution that can be applied to individual test scores. We established formulas to estimate normalized T scores from raw scale scores by regressing IRT-based θ scores on raw scores. With data from a large population and clinical samples, we established crosswalk formulas. Their validity was investigated by comparing calculated T scores with IRT-based T scores. IRT and formulas yielded very similar T scores, supporting the validity of the latter approach. Theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of both approaches to convert scores to common metrics and alternative approaches are discussed. Provided that scale characteristics allow for their computation, T scores will help to better understand measurement results, which makes it easier for patients and practitioners to use test results in joint decision-making about the course of treatment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000740\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000740","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要临床心理学测量的多样性阻碍了对测试结果的直接解释,使与患者的沟通复杂化,并对实施基于测量的护理构成挑战。在教育研究和评估中,通常的做法是将考试成绩转换为通用的度量标准,例如T分数。我们建议在临床心理学中也应用这一方法,并提出和测试一种方法来获得近似于正态分布的T分数,这种正态分布可以应用于个体测试分数。我们建立了公式,通过对原始分数回归基于irt的θ分数,从原始分数中估计归一化T分数。根据大量人群和临床样本的数据,我们建立了人行横道公式。通过比较计算的T评分和基于irt的T评分来研究它们的有效性。IRT和公式产生非常相似的T分数,支持后一种方法的有效性。讨论了两种将分数转换为通用度量和替代方法的理论和实践优缺点。如果量表特征允许其计算,T分数将有助于更好地理解测量结果,这使得患者和医生更容易使用测试结果来共同决策治疗过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Common Measurement Scale for Self-Report Instruments in Mental Health Care
Abstract. The diversity of measures in clinical psychology hampers a straightforward interpretation of test results, complicates communication with the patient, and constitutes a challenge to the implementation of measurement-based care. In educational research and assessment, it is common practice to convert test scores to a common metric, such as T scores. We recommend applying this also in clinical psychology and propose and test a procedure to arrive at T scores approximating a normal distribution that can be applied to individual test scores. We established formulas to estimate normalized T scores from raw scale scores by regressing IRT-based θ scores on raw scores. With data from a large population and clinical samples, we established crosswalk formulas. Their validity was investigated by comparing calculated T scores with IRT-based T scores. IRT and formulas yielded very similar T scores, supporting the validity of the latter approach. Theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of both approaches to convert scores to common metrics and alternative approaches are discussed. Provided that scale characteristics allow for their computation, T scores will help to better understand measurement results, which makes it easier for patients and practitioners to use test results in joint decision-making about the course of treatment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.
期刊最新文献
Trait- and State-Aspects of Procrastination and Their Relation to Study Satisfaction How Happy Is Happy Enough? The Internal Consistency of the Moral Injury Event Scale Heterogeneity of Alexithymia Subgroups A Persian Validation of the Occupational Depression Inventory
×
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