Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire
Do you wish to request the book?
Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire
2019
Overview
Background
The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure distress, depression, anxiety, and somatization. Prior to computing scale scores from the item scores, the three highest response alternatives (‘Regularly’, ‘Often’, and ‘Very often or constantly present’) are usually collapsed into one category to reduce the influence of extreme responding on item- and scale scores. In this study, we evaluate the usefulness of this transformation for the distress scale based on a variety of criteria.
Methods
Specifically, by using the Graded Response Model, we investigated the effect of this transformation on model fit, local measurement precision, and various indicators of the scale’s validity to get an indication on whether the current practice of recoding should be advocated or not. In particular, the effect on the convergent- (operationalized by the General Health Questionnaire and the Maastricht Questionnaire), divergent- (operationalized by the Neuroticism scale of the NEO-FFI), and predictive validity (operationalized as obtrusion with daily chores and activities, the Biographical Problem list and the Utrecht Burnout Scale) of the distress scale was investigated.
Results
Results indicate that recoding leads to (i) better model fit as indicated by lower mean probabilities of exact test statistics assessing item fit, (ii) small (<.02) losses in the sizes of various validity coefficients, and (iii) a decrease (DIFF (SE’s) = .10–.25) in measurement precision for medium and high levels of distress.
Conclusions
For clinical applications and applications in longitudinal research, the current practice of recoding should be avoided because recoding decreases measurement precision for medium and high levels of distress. It would be interesting to see whether this advice also holds for the three other domains of the 4DSQ.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
/ Adult
/ Analysis
/ Anxiety
/ Anxiety Disorders - diagnosis
/ Depressive Disorder - diagnosis
/ Female
/ GRM
/ Humans
/ IRT
/ Male
/ Medicine
/ Methods
/ Neurosis
/ Noise
/ Recoding
/ Somatoform Disorders - diagnosis
/ Surveys
/ Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
/ Validity
