评估测试前-测试后设置中的差异得分可靠性

IF 1.9 3区心理学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Pub Date : 2021-02-15 DOI:10.3102/1076998620986948

Zhengguo Gu, W. Emons, K. Sijtsma

{"title":"评估测试前-测试后设置中的差异得分可靠性","authors":"Zhengguo Gu, W. Emons, K. Sijtsma","doi":"10.3102/1076998620986948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical, medical, and health psychologists use difference scores obtained from pretest–posttest designs employing the same test to assess intraindividual change possibly caused by an intervention addressing, for example, anxiety, depression, eating disorder, or addiction. Reliability of difference scores is important for interpreting observed change. This article compares the well-documented traditional method and the unfamiliar, rarely used item-level method for estimating difference-score reliability. We simulated data under various conditions that are typical of change assessment in pretest–posttest designs. The item-level method had smaller bias and greater precision than the traditional method and may be recommended for practical use.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"46 1","pages":"592 - 610"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating Difference-Score Reliability in Pretest–Posttest Settings\",\"authors\":\"Zhengguo Gu, W. Emons, K. Sijtsma\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/1076998620986948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Clinical, medical, and health psychologists use difference scores obtained from pretest–posttest designs employing the same test to assess intraindividual change possibly caused by an intervention addressing, for example, anxiety, depression, eating disorder, or addiction. Reliability of difference scores is important for interpreting observed change. This article compares the well-documented traditional method and the unfamiliar, rarely used item-level method for estimating difference-score reliability. We simulated data under various conditions that are typical of change assessment in pretest–posttest designs. The item-level method had smaller bias and greater precision than the traditional method and may be recommended for practical use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"592 - 610\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998620986948\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998620986948","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

临床、医学和健康心理学家使用从采用相同测试的前测-后测设计中获得的差异分数来评估可能由针对焦虑、抑郁、饮食障碍或成瘾的干预措施引起的个体内变化。差异得分的可靠性对于解释观察到的变化很重要。本文比较了文献丰富的传统方法和不熟悉、很少使用的项目级方法来估计差异得分的可靠性。我们模拟了各种条件下的数据，这些条件是前测-后测设计中变化评估的典型情况。与传统方法相比，项目级方法具有更小的偏差和更高的精度，可以推荐用于实际应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Estimating Difference-Score Reliability in Pretest–Posttest Settings

Clinical, medical, and health psychologists use difference scores obtained from pretest–posttest designs employing the same test to assess intraindividual change possibly caused by an intervention addressing, for example, anxiety, depression, eating disorder, or addiction. Reliability of difference scores is important for interpreting observed change. This article compares the well-documented traditional method and the unfamiliar, rarely used item-level method for estimating difference-score reliability. We simulated data under various conditions that are typical of change assessment in pretest–posttest designs. The item-level method had smaller bias and greater precision than the traditional method and may be recommended for practical use.

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

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Multiple-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.