Rasch Analysis of Word Identification and Magnitude Estimation Scaling Responses in Measuring Naïve Listeners' Judgments of Speech Intelligibility of Children With Severe-to-Profound Hearing Impairments

Beltyukova, Svetlana A.; Stone, G. M.; Ellis, Lee

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0218)

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are consistent with previous studies that reported reliability of the data produced by MES of 0.90 or higher (e.g., Beltyukova, Stone, & Ellis, 2008;Beltyukova, Stone, & Fox, 2008;Sennott-Miller et al, 1988). In terms of providing for fine discrimination, most of the respondents refer to the discriminatory power of absolute MES and the Rasch separation indices indicated that statistically distinct groups for person and items were identified.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In terms of providing for fine discrimination, most of the respondents refer to the discriminatory power of absolute MES and the Rasch separation indices indicated that statistically distinct groups for person and items were identified. This latter finding is consistent with previous studies reporting that data produced by MES allow for distinguishing between two or more distinct groups when respondents rated speech intelligibility (Beltyukova, Stone, & Ellis, 2008), difficulty of exam items (Beltyukova, Stone, & Fox, 2008), and their attitude toward quantitative research (Koskey et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Instructions provided by researchers for making magnitude estimations vary greatly across the literature, making it impossible to compare findings across studies or inferences about the validity of MES as a scaling method. Most researchers follow Stevens’s original instructions, allowing respondents to use whole numbers, fractions, and decimals (Algom & Marks, 1984; Beltyukova, Stone, & Ellis, 2008; Beltyukova, Stone, & Fox, 2008; McColl & Fucci, 2006; Walker, 2002). Additionally, there is some consistency that lower ratings indicate less and higher ratings indicate more.…”

Section: Literature On Mes and The Need For Mixed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others have computed the median (Boverie et al, 1995) or arithmetic mean (Bass et al, 1974; Ellis & Fucci, 1991; Zraick & Liss, 2000). Another common analytical technique has been to transform the reported scales onto a common scale (Beltyukova, Stone, & Ellis, 2008; Beltyukova, Stone, & Fox, 2008; Lawless, Horne, & Spiers, 2000; Tesler et al, 1991). The decision as to which scale to choose as common varies across studies.…”

Section: Literature On Mes and The Need For Mixed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Concurrent Mixed Methods Approach to Examining the Quantitative and Qualitative Meaningfulness of Absolute Magnitude Estimation Scales in Survey Research

Koskey

Stewart

2013

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This small n observational study used a concurrent mixed methods approach to address a void in the literature with regard to the qualitative meaningfulness of the data yielded by absolute magnitude estimation scaling (MES) used to rate subjective stimuli. We investigated whether respondents' scales progressed from less to more and provided for meaningful discriminations, similarities and differences in how they defined their scales, and whether their definitions were congruent with how they used their scales. The respondents completed a think-aloud task while using MES and a follow-up interview regarding how they used MES and defined their scales. The respondents' scales did not yield meaningful data. Implications for survey research and the use of mixed methods in rating scale construction are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Literature On Mes and The Need For Mixed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature On Mes and The Need For Mixed Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Concurrent Mixed Methods Approach to Examining the Quantitative and Qualitative Meaningfulness of Absolute Magnitude Estimation Scales in Survey Research

Koskey

Stewart

2013

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IRT is widely utilized within rehabilitation measurement (Eadie et al, 2006) and patient reported outcomes (Cella et al, 2010). In the past decade, IRT has been implemented in clinical research and patient reported assessments (Babbitt, Heinemann, Semik, & Cherney, 2011; Beltyukova, Stone, & Ellis, 2008; Donovan, Velozo, & Rosenbek, 2007; Edmonds & Donovan, 2012) in communication science and disorders.…”

Section: Irt In Aphasiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting confrontation naming item difficulty

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Item response theory (IRT; Lord & Novick, 1968) is a psychometric framework that can be used to model the likelihood that an individual will respond correctly to an item. Using archival data (Mirman et al., 2010), Fergadiotis, Kellough, and Hula (2015) estimated difficulty parameters for the Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT; Roach, Schwartz, Martin, Grewal, & Brecher, 1996) using the 1-parameter logistic IRT model. Although the use of IRT in test development is advantageous, its reliance on sample sizes exceeding 200 participants make it difficult to implement in aphasiology. Therefore, alternate means of estimating the item difficulty of confrontation naming test items warrant investigation. In a preliminary study aimed at automatic item calibration, Swiderski, Fergadiotis, and Hula (2016) regressed the difficulty parameters from the PNT on word length, age of acquisition (Kuperman et al., 2012), lexical frequency as quantified by the Log10CD index (Brysbaert & New, 2009), and naming latency (Székely et al., 2003). Although this model successfully explained a substantial proportion of variance in the PNT difficulty parameters, a substantial proportion (20%) of the response time data were missing. Further, only 39% of the picture stimuli from Székely and colleagues (2003) were identical to those on the PNT. Given that the IRT sample size requirements limit traditional calibration approaches in aphasiology and that the initial attempts in predicting IRT difficulty parameters in our pilot study were based on incomplete response time data this study has two specific aims. Aims: To estimate naming latencies for the 175 items on the PNT, and assess the utility of psycholinguistic variables and naming latencies for predicting item difficulty. Methods and Procedures: Using a speeded picture naming task we estimated mean naming latencies for the 175 items of the Philadelphia Naming test in 44 cognitively healthy adults. We then re-estimated the model reported by Swiderski et al (2016) with the new naming latency data. Results: The predictor variables described above accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in the item difficulty parameters (Adj. R2 = .692). Conclusions: In this study we demonstrated that word length, age of acquisition, lexical frequency, and naming latency from neurotypical young adults usefully predict picture naming item difficulty in people with aphasia. These variables are readily available or easily obtained and the regression model reported may be useful for estimating confrontation naming item difficulty without the need for collection of response data from large samples of people with aphasia.

show abstract

Measuring Professionalism in Resident Physicians

Peeters¹

2009

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rasch Analysis of Word Identification and Magnitude Estimation Scaling Responses in Measuring Naïve Listeners' Judgments of Speech Intelligibility of Children With Severe-to-Profound Hearing Impairments

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

A Concurrent Mixed Methods Approach to Examining the Quantitative and Qualitative Meaningfulness of Absolute Magnitude Estimation Scales in Survey Research

A Concurrent Mixed Methods Approach to Examining the Quantitative and Qualitative Meaningfulness of Absolute Magnitude Estimation Scales in Survey Research

Predicting confrontation naming item difficulty

Measuring Professionalism in Resident Physicians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About