Item Response Theory in Affective Instrument Development: An Illustration

Journal of Nursing Measurement

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 5-22

  Beck, Cheryl Tatano ^a,b   Gable, Robert K ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFFECT; ATTITUDE; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; NURSING RESEARCH; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; PSYCHOMETRY; PUERPERAL DEPRESSION; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AFFECT; ATTITUDE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DEPRESSION, POSTPARTUM; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NURSING RESEARCH; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0035293757     PISSN: 10613749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1891/1061-3749.9.1.5     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Beck, C. T., & Gable, R. K. (2000). Postpartum depression screening scale: Development and psychometric testing. Nursing Research, 49, 272-282.
2. DeRoos, Y. S., & Allen-Meares, P. (1992). Rasch analysis: Its description and use analyzing the Children's Depression Inventory. Journal of Social Service Research, 16, 1-17.
3. Gable, R., & Wolf, M. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4. Hambleton, R., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
5. Hambleton, R., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory, principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.
6. Howard, E. P. (1985). Applying the Rasch model to test administration. Journal of Nursing Education, 24, 340-343.
7. Linacre, J. M. (1999). A user's guide to facets. Chicago: Mesa Press.
8. Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Rasch, G. (1966). An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 49-57.
10. Van Alphen, A., Halfens, R., Hasman, A., & Imbos, T. (1994). Likert or Rasch? Nothing is more applicable than good theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 196-201.
11. Wright, B., (1997). Fundamental measurement for outcome evaluation. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: State of the An Reviewers, 11, 261-288.
12. Wright, B., & Linacre, J. (1989). Observations are always ordinal: Measurements, however, must be interval. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 857-860.
13. Wright, B., & Linacre, J. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions [On-line], 8, 370. Available: mesa.spc.uchicago.edu/rmt/rmt83.html
14. Wright, B., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.
15. Wright, B., & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.
16. Yen, M., & Edwardson, S. R. (1999). Item-response theory approach in scale development. Nursing Research, 48, 234-238.