2020
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01373-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Rasch measurement theory to assess the psychometric properties of a depressive symptoms scale in Norwegian adolescents

Abstract: Background: Scales measuring depressive symptoms in adolescents and adults are widely used for epidemiological purposes. The purpose of this study is to use Rasch measurement theory to examine the psychometric properties of a six-item scale intended to measure depressive symptoms in Norwegian adolescents. Methods: The study is based on cross-sectional data from Ungdata, a survey conducted by the Norwegian Social Research Institute in cooperation with Regional Centres for Drug Rehabilitation in 2017. The target… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The mean scores were computed, and the results were dichotomized using a cutoff value of ≥3.0 to classify adolescents as 1 = with depressive symptoms versus 0 = with no depressive symptoms. This cutoff value has been used in Norway in previous population studies [23], and the depressive scale has been psychometrically evaluated among Norwegian adolescents and shown to have good reliability (person separation index 0.802) [30].…”
Section: Explanatory Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mean scores were computed, and the results were dichotomized using a cutoff value of ≥3.0 to classify adolescents as 1 = with depressive symptoms versus 0 = with no depressive symptoms. This cutoff value has been used in Norway in previous population studies [23], and the depressive scale has been psychometrically evaluated among Norwegian adolescents and shown to have good reliability (person separation index 0.802) [30].…”
Section: Explanatory Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“….) or unknown groups (latent classes) (Golia, 2015;Cho et al, 2016;Davis et al, 2020;Kleppang et al, 2020) for detecting so-called "biased" items and assessing their impact on the latent trait parameters' estimates. Although longitudinal IRT or RMT models could also be used in the same way to investigate RS or lack of longitudinal invariance depending on covariates, longitudinal invariance is rarely investigated with IRT or RMT models and covariates are seldom included in such models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, an additional issue arises as patients might have a different perception of the measured PRO depending on their group membership at a specific time point, a phenomenon known as differential item functioning (DIF). Integrating covariates in cross-sectional IRT or RMT models used as latent regression models is quite common to investigate DIF between known (e.g., gender, age…) or unknown groups (latent classes) ( Golia, 2015 ; Cho et al, 2016 ; Davis et al, 2020 ; Kleppang et al, 2020 ) for detecting so-called “biased” items and assessing their impact on the latent trait parameters’ estimates. Although longitudinal IRT or RMT models could also be used in the same way to investigate RS or lack of longitudinal invariance depending on covariates, longitudinal invariance is rarely investigated with IRT or RMT models and covariates are seldom included in such models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data used in this study were collected in 2017–2019 and provide an up-to-date description of key aspects of adolescents’ lives. Additionally, the outcome measure worked well psychometrically at a general level [ 37 ]. A limitation of the study was the cross-sectional design, which precluded inferences about causal relationships.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The depressive scale was psychometrically evaluated among Norwegian adolescents. The scale showed good reliability (Person separation index: 0.802), the targeting was acceptable, the response categories were ordered, and as a whole, the scale worked reasonably well at a general level [ 37 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%