Improving the quality and applicability of the dutch scales of the communication profile for the hearing impaired using item response theory

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 556-571

  Mokkink, Lidwine B ^a   Knol, Dirk L ^a   Van Nispen, Ruth M A ^a   Kramer, Sophia E ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI); Coping; Differential item functioning; Hearing impairment; Item fit; Item response theory (IRT)

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; COMMUNICATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77953334658     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0035)     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & Van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques. DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care, 44, S115-S123.
2. Crane, P. K., Van Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 241-256.
3. Demorest, M. E., & Erdman, S. A. (1986). Scale composition and item analysis of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 515-535.
4. Demorest, M. E., & Erdman, S. A. (1987). Development of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 129-143.
5. Demorest, M. E., & Erdman, S. A. (1988). Retest stability of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Ear and Hearing, 9, 237-242.
6. Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16, 5-18.
7. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155-174.
8. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Erdman, S. A. (2006). Clinical interpretation of the CPHI. Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation, 7, 3-18.
10. Erdman, S. A., & Demorest, M. E. (1998). Adjustment to hearing impairment: II. Audiological and demographic correlates. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 123-136.
11. Flora, D., & Thissen, D. (2002). User's guide for IRTScore: Item response theory score approximation software. Retrieved from www.unc.edu/~dthissen/dl.html.
12. Gomez, R. W., & Madey, S. F. (2001). Coping-with-hearingloss model for older adults. Journal of Gerontology, Psychological Sciences, 56B, 223-225.
13. Gustafsson, J. E. (1977). The Rasch model for dichotomous items: Theory, applications and a computer program [Internal Report No. 63]. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg.
14. Hallberg, L. R., Eriksson-Mangold, M., & Carlsson, S. G. (1992). Psychometric evaluation of a Swedish version of the Communication Strategies scale of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 666-674.
15. Hallberg, R. M., Hallberg, U., & Kramer, S. E. (2008). Selfreported hearing difficulties, communication strategies and psychological general well-being (quality of life) in patients with acquired hearing impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 203-212.
16. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Hays, R. D., Brown, J., Brown, L. U., Spritzer, K. L., & Crall, J. J. (2006). Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents' perceptions of their children's dental care. Medical Care, 44, S60-S68.
18. Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, II28-II42.
19. Helvik, A. S., Thurmer, H., Jacobsen, G. W., Bratt, M., & Hallberg, L. R. (2007). Psychometric evaluation of a Norwegian version of the Communication Strategies scale of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 513-520.
20. Knutson, J. F., & Lansing, C. R. (1990). The relationship between communication problems and psychological difficulties in persons with profound acquired hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 656-664.
21. Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Zekveld, A. A., Goverts, S. T., & Kramer, S. E. (2009). Factor structure and reliability of the Dutch version of seven scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 454-464.
22. Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J.A., . . .Cella, D., for the PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22-S31.
23. Reise, S. P., & Henson, J. M. (2003). A discussion of modern versus traditional psychometrics as applied to personality assessment scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 93-103.
24. Reise, S.P., & Yu, J. (1990). Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 133-144.
25. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Richmond, VA: The Psychometric Society.
26. Stone, C. A. (2004). IRTFIT-RESAMPLE: A computer program for assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models based on posterior expectations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 143-144.
27. Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 331-352.
28. Teresi, J. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2007). Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl. 1), 33-42.
29. Tesch-Römer, C., & Nowak, M. (1998). How do elderly people cope with hearing and communication problems? About the psychosocial implications of presbyacusis. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 27, 105-110.
30. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Retrieved from www.unc.edu/~dthissen/dl.html.
31. Tutz, G. (1990). Sequential item response models with an ordered response. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43, 39-55.