Purpose
To focus attention on the need for rigorous and carefully designed test–retest reliability assessments for new patient-reported outcomes and to encourage retest researchers to be thoughtful, ambitious, and creative in their retest efforts.

Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations.

#Summary: Item response theory (IRT) is an important method of assessing the validity of measurement scales that is underutilized in the field of psychiatry. IRT describes the relationship between a latent trait (e.g., the construct that the scale proposes to assess), the properties of the items in the scale, and respondents’ answers to the individual items. This paper introduces the basic premise, assumptions, and methods of IRT. To help explain these concepts we generate a hypothetical scale using three items from a modified, binary (yes/no) response version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale that was administered to 19,399 respondents. We first conducted a factor analysis to confirm the unidimensionality of the three items and then proceeded with Mplus software to construct the 2-Parameter Logic (2-PL) IRT model of the data, a method which allows for estimates of both item discrimination and item difficulty. The utility of this information both for clinical purposes and for scale construction purposes is discussed.

Item response theory for measurement validity

Background: The internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.
Objective: This study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.
Results: This study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.
Conclusions: The eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.

eHealth Literacy Instruments: Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS)-21 measures emotional symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, is relatively short, and is freely available in the public domain, which has resulted in it being applied to various clinical and non-clinical populations in many countries. The aim of this study was to systematically review the measurement properties of the DASS-21. The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched. The methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the updated COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The quality of the measurement properties of the studies was rated using the updated criteria for good measurement properties. The quality of evidence was rated using a modified version of the GRADE approach. This study included 48 studies in its review. The content validity of the DASS-21 demonstrated sufficient moderate-quality evidence. The instrument exhibited sufficient high-quality evidence for bifactor structural validity and internal consistency. The instrument also showed sufficient high-quality evidence for hypothesis testing of construct validity. Regarding criterion validity, only the DASS-21 Depression subscale demonstrated sufficient high-quality evidence. The measurement invariance across gender demonstrated inconsistent moderate-quality evidence. There was insufficient low-quality evidence for the reliability of each subscale. For responsiveness there was sufficient low-quality evidence for depression and stress subscales, and insufficient very-low-quality evidence for anxiety subscale. The DASS-21 demonstrated sufficient high-quality evidence for bifactor structural validity, internal consistency (bifactor), criterion validity (Depression subscale), and hypothesis testing for construct validity. Further studies are required to assess the other measurement properties of the DASS-21.

Systematic review of the measurement properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales–21 by applying updated COSMIN methodology

RESUMO Objetivo: apresentar e discutir bases conceituais e metodos de avaliacoes que fundamentam importantes propriedades de instrumentos de medidas. Metodo: estudo teorico embasado na literatura internacional e nacional e nos instrumentos Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments e Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes que contemplam conceitos de avaliacao de instrumentos para apreciacao de resultados relatados pelo paciente. Inicialmente sao apresentados e discutidos os conceitos de confiabilidade, responsividade e interpretabilidade, citados exemplos das principais formas de avaliacao dessas propriedades. Resultados: pode-se perceber que ainda ha divergencias em algumas descricoes conceituais. Entretanto, os autores ressaltam a importância da confiabilidade para avaliar o instrumento de medida. Destaca-se a importância do conhecimento do Modelo Conceitual, das propriedades de medidas e dos diferentes metodos de avaliacao para garantir, principalmente em estudo de validacao de instrumentos, resultados confiaveis e validos. Conclusoes: a discussao apresentada sobre a confiabilidade, responsividade e interpretabilidade contribui para os profissionais de saude no conhecimento teorico e senso critico na escolha de instrumentos e na conducao de analises sobre essas propriedades de medida.

/pdf/propriedades-psicometricas-de-instrumentos-de-medidas-bases-2v5a2fvqqu.pdf

Propriedades psicométricas de instrumentos de medidas: bases conceituais e métodos de avaliação - parte i

Measurement and the measurement of change : , Measurement and the measurement of change : , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی شاپور اهواز

Measurement and the Measurement of Change

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Humanalysis

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Measurement and the Measurement of Change