比较临床评估中的Likert和Slider反应格式:使用ces - d8测量抑郁症状的证据

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Guyin Zhang, Amanda J Fairchild, Bo Zhang, Dingjing Shi, Dexin Shi
{"title":"比较临床评估中的Likert和Slider反应格式:使用ces - d8测量抑郁症状的证据","authors":"Guyin Zhang, Amanda J Fairchild, Bo Zhang, Dingjing Shi, Dexin Shi","doi":"10.1177/10731911251329977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared various response formats in fitting confirmatory factor analysis models. Participants responded to the eight-item center for epidemiologic studies depression scale across five different response formats in a within-subjects experimental design: the Likert-type scale, three types of slider response formats, and a number-entry response format. We compared the different response formats based on item-level scores, factor structure and psychometric properties of the scale, mean comparisons across groups, and individuals' sum scores. Similar results were observed across the response formats with respect to factor structure, measurement invariance, reliability, and validity of test scores. However, inconsistent results were found regarding group mean comparisons across groups. Individuals' item scores and sum scores also varied across different response formats, as did participants' subjective evaluations of response formats in terms of perceived accuracy, enjoyment, difficulty, and mental exhaustion. Based on study findings, we provide recommendations and discuss implications for researchers designing and conducting clinical assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911251329977"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Likert and Slider Response Formats in Clinical Assessment: Evidence From Measuring Depression Symptoms Using CES-D 8.\",\"authors\":\"Guyin Zhang, Amanda J Fairchild, Bo Zhang, Dingjing Shi, Dexin Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911251329977\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study compared various response formats in fitting confirmatory factor analysis models. Participants responded to the eight-item center for epidemiologic studies depression scale across five different response formats in a within-subjects experimental design: the Likert-type scale, three types of slider response formats, and a number-entry response format. We compared the different response formats based on item-level scores, factor structure and psychometric properties of the scale, mean comparisons across groups, and individuals' sum scores. Similar results were observed across the response formats with respect to factor structure, measurement invariance, reliability, and validity of test scores. However, inconsistent results were found regarding group mean comparisons across groups. Individuals' item scores and sum scores also varied across different response formats, as did participants' subjective evaluations of response formats in terms of perceived accuracy, enjoyment, difficulty, and mental exhaustion. Based on study findings, we provide recommendations and discuss implications for researchers designing and conducting clinical assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10731911251329977\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251329977\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251329977","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了验证性因子分析模型的不同响应格式。参与者对流行病学研究中心的八项抑郁量表进行了回应,在受试者内部实验设计中采用了五种不同的回应格式:李克特型量表,三种类型的滑动反应格式和数字输入反应格式。我们根据项目水平得分、量表的因素结构和心理测量特性、组间均值比较和个人总得分比较了不同的回答格式。在不同的回答格式中,在因子结构、测量不变性、信度和测试分数的效度方面观察到相似的结果。然而,在组间平均比较中发现了不一致的结果。在不同的回答格式中,个人的单项得分和总得分也有所不同,参与者对回答格式的主观评价在感知的准确性、乐趣、难度和精神疲惫方面也有所不同。根据研究结果,我们提供建议,并讨论对研究人员设计和实施临床评估的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Likert and Slider Response Formats in Clinical Assessment: Evidence From Measuring Depression Symptoms Using CES-D 8.

This study compared various response formats in fitting confirmatory factor analysis models. Participants responded to the eight-item center for epidemiologic studies depression scale across five different response formats in a within-subjects experimental design: the Likert-type scale, three types of slider response formats, and a number-entry response format. We compared the different response formats based on item-level scores, factor structure and psychometric properties of the scale, mean comparisons across groups, and individuals' sum scores. Similar results were observed across the response formats with respect to factor structure, measurement invariance, reliability, and validity of test scores. However, inconsistent results were found regarding group mean comparisons across groups. Individuals' item scores and sum scores also varied across different response formats, as did participants' subjective evaluations of response formats in terms of perceived accuracy, enjoyment, difficulty, and mental exhaustion. Based on study findings, we provide recommendations and discuss implications for researchers designing and conducting clinical assessments.

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
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信