多地点随机对照试验中的评分评估:研究治疗效果估计值对测量选择的敏感性。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Megan Kuhfeld, James Soland
{"title":"多地点随机对照试验中的评分评估:研究治疗效果估计值对测量选择的敏感性。","authors":"Megan Kuhfeld, James Soland","doi":"10.1037/met0000633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While a great deal of thought, planning, and money goes into the design of multisite randomized control trials (RCTs) that are used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in fields like education and psychology, relatively little thought is often paid to the measurement choices made in such evaluations. In this study, we conduct a series of simulation studies that consider a wide range of options for producing scores from multiple administration of assessments in the context of multisite RCTs. The scoring models considered range from the simple (sum scores) to highly complex (multilevel two-tier item response theory [IRT] models with latent regression). We find that the true treatment effect is attenuated when sum scores or scores from IRT models that do not account for treatment assignment are used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoring assessments in multisite randomized control trials: Examining the sensitivity of treatment effect estimates to measurement choices.\",\"authors\":\"Megan Kuhfeld, James Soland\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While a great deal of thought, planning, and money goes into the design of multisite randomized control trials (RCTs) that are used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in fields like education and psychology, relatively little thought is often paid to the measurement choices made in such evaluations. In this study, we conduct a series of simulation studies that consider a wide range of options for producing scores from multiple administration of assessments in the context of multisite RCTs. The scoring models considered range from the simple (sum scores) to highly complex (multilevel two-tier item response theory [IRT] models with latent regression). We find that the true treatment effect is attenuated when sum scores or scores from IRT models that do not account for treatment assignment are used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000633\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000633","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多地点随机对照试验(RCTs)用于评估教育和心理学等领域干预措施的有效性,在设计过程中需要花费大量的心思、计划和资金,但对于此类评估中的测量选择,人们往往考虑得相对较少。在本研究中,我们进行了一系列模拟研究,考虑了在多地点随机对照试验的背景下,从多次施测中产生分数的多种选择。考虑的计分模型从简单的(总分)到高度复杂的(多层次双层项目反应理论 [IRT] 模型与潜在回归)不等。我们发现,当使用总分或不考虑治疗分配的 IRT 模型得分时,真实的治疗效果会减弱。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoring assessments in multisite randomized control trials: Examining the sensitivity of treatment effect estimates to measurement choices.

While a great deal of thought, planning, and money goes into the design of multisite randomized control trials (RCTs) that are used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in fields like education and psychology, relatively little thought is often paid to the measurement choices made in such evaluations. In this study, we conduct a series of simulation studies that consider a wide range of options for producing scores from multiple administration of assessments in the context of multisite RCTs. The scoring models considered range from the simple (sum scores) to highly complex (multilevel two-tier item response theory [IRT] models with latent regression). We find that the true treatment effect is attenuated when sum scores or scores from IRT models that do not account for treatment assignment are used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信