Impact of rating scale categories on reliability and fit statistics of the Malay Spiritual well-being Scale using Rasch analysis

Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 48-55

  Daher, Aqil Mohammad ^a   Ahmad, Syed Hassan ^b   Winn, Than ^c   Selamat, Mohd Ikhsan ^b  

^a NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA   (Malaysia)

^c MAHSA Universi ty   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Analysis; Rating scale; Reliability; Spirituality

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CHINESE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDIAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ISLAM; MALAY (PEOPLE); MALAY SPIRITUAL WELL BEING SCALE; MALE; RACE; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; RELIGION; SEX RATIO; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 84928818349     PISSN: 1394195X     EISSN: 21804303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Carlson NR, Buskist W, Enzle ME, Heth CD. Psychology: The Science of Behaviour (Canadian Edition). Allyn and Bacon Canada (CN): Scarborough, Ontario; 2000.
2. Progar Š, Sočan G. An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory. Horizons Psychol. 2008;17(3):5-24.
3. Schumacker RE, Smith EV. A Rasch Perspective. Educ Psychol Measurement. 2007;67(3):394-409. doi: 10.1177/0013164406294776.
4. Wright BD, Mok MMC. An overview of the family of Rasch measurement models. In: Smith Jr EV, Smith RM, editors. Introduction to Rasch measurement. Maple Grove (MN): JAM Press; 2004. p. 1-24.
5. Linacre J. True-score reliability or Rasch statistical validity. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1996;9(4):455.
6. Clauser B, Linacre J. Relating Cronbach and Rasch reliabilities. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1999;13(2):696.
7. Schutz HG, Rucker MH. A Comparison of Variable Configurations Across Scale Lengths: An Empirical Study'. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1975;35(2):319-324. doi: 10.1177/001316447503500210.
8. Bendig AW. The reliability of self-ratings as a function of the amount of verbal anchoring and of the number of categories on the scale. J Appl Psychol. 1953;37(1):38-41. doi: 10.1037/h0057911.
9. Bendig AW. Reliability and the number of rating-scale categories. J Appl Psychol. 1954;38(1):38-40. doi: 10.1037/h0055647.
10. Komorita SS. Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale. J Soc Psychol. 1963;61(2);327-334. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1963.9919489.
11. Matell MS, Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1971;31(3):657-674. doi: 10.1177?001316447103100307.
12. Remington M, Tyrer P, Newson-Smith J, Cicchetti D. Comparative reliability of categorical and analogue rating scales in the assessment of psychiatric symptomatology. Psychol Med. 1979;9(4):765-770. doi: 10.1017/S0033291700034097.
13. Brown G, Widing RE, Coulter RL. Customer evaluation of retail salespeople utilizing the SOCO scale: a replication, extension, and application. J Academy Marketing Sci. 1991;19(4):347-351. doi: 10.1007/BF02726510.
14. Cicchetti DV, Shoinralter D, Tyrer PJ. The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Appl Psychol Measurement. 1985;9(1):31. doi: 10.1177/014662168500900103.
15. Oaster T. Number of alternatives per choice point and stability of Likert-type scales. Perceptual Motor Skills. 1989;68:549-550. doi: 10.2466/pms.1989.68.2.549.
16. Finn HR. Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1972;32(2):255-265. doi: 10.1177/001316447203200203.
17. Ramsay J. The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika. 1973;38(4):513-532. doi: 10.1007?BF02291492.
18. Aiken LR. Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1983;43(2):397-401. doi: 10.1177?001316448304300209.
19. Boote AS. Reliability testing of psychographic scales:Five-point or seven-point? Anchored or labeled? J Advert Res. 1981;21:53-60.
20. McCallum DM, Keith BR, Wiebe DJ. Comparison of response formats for Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales: Six levels versus two levels. J Personal Assessment. 1988;52(4):732-736. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5204_12
21. McKelvie SJ. Graphic rating scales-How many categories? British J Psychol. 1978;69(2):185-202. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1978.tb01647.x.
22. Jenkins GD, Taber TD. A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. J Appl Psychol. 1977;62(4):392-398. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.392.
23. Lissitz RW, Green SB. Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. J Appl Psychol. 1975;60(1):10-13. doi: 10.1037/h0076268.
24. Zhu W, Timm G, Ainsworth B. Rasch calibration and optimal categorization of an instrument measuring women's exercise perseverance and barriers. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2001;72(2):104-116. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2001.10608940.
25. Zhu W, Updyke WF, Lewandowski C. Post-hoc Rasch analysis of optimal categorization of an ordered-response scale. J Outcome Measurement. 1997;1(4):286-304.
26. Pesudovs K, Noble BA. Improving subjective scaling of pain using Rasch analysis. J Pain. 2005;6(9):630-636. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.04.001.
27. Ellison CW. Spiritual Well-Being: Conceptualization and Measurement. J Psycholand Theol. 1983;11: 330-340.
28. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Geneva (CH); World Health Organization: 2007.
29. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplège A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11): 913-923. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00082-1.
30. Linacre J. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement (Version 3.60. 1). Chicago (USA): WINSTEPS. com. Computer program; 2006.
31. Linacre JM. What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 2002;16(2):878.
32. Green KE, Frantom C, editors. Survey development and validation with the Rasch model. International Conference on Questionnaire Development, Evaluation, and Testing. Charleston (SC): (publication unknown); 2002.
33. Fisher WPJ. Rating Scale Instrument Quality Criteria. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 2007;21(1):1095.
34. BD W, JM L. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1994;8(3):370.
35. Chang L. A psychometric evaluation of four-point and six-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Appl Psychol Measurement. 1994;18(3):205-215. doi: 10.1177?014662169401800302.
36. Nunnally Jr JC. Introduction to psychological measurement. New York (NY); McGraw-Hill: 1970.
37. Martin WS. Effects of scaling on the correlation coefficient: Additional considerations. J Marketing Res. 1978:15(2);304-308. doi: 10.2307/3151268.
38. Garner WR. Rating scales, discriminability, and information transmission. Psychol rev. 1960;67(6):343-352. doi: 10.1037/h0043047.
39. Chen W-H, Lenderking W, Jin Y, Wyrwich KW, Gelhorn H, Revicki DA. Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):485-493. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5.
40. Smith AB, Rush R, Fallowfield LJ, Velikova G, Sharpe M. Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2008;8(1):33. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-33.