{"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}
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.
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.