Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

The construct validity of the Major Depression Inventory: A Rasch analysis of a self-rating scale in primary care

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Nielsen, Marie Germund ; Ørnbøl, Eva ; Vestergaard, Mogens ; Bech, Per ; Christensen, Kaj Aage Sparle. / The construct validity of the Major Depression Inventory : A Rasch analysis of a self-rating scale in primary care. I: Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2017 ; Bind 97. s. 70-81.

Bibtex

@article{f22527819ce2461890f56a43784c19e0,
title = "The construct validity of the Major Depression Inventory: A Rasch analysis of a self-rating scale in primary care",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the measurement properties of the ten-item Major Depression Inventory when used on clinical suspicion in general practice by performing a Rasch analysis.METHODS: General practitioners asked consecutive persons to respond to the web-based Major Depression Inventory on clinical suspicion of depression. We included 22 practices and 245 persons. Rasch analysis was performed using RUMM2030 software. The Rasch model fit suggests that all items contribute to a single underlying trait (defined as internal construct validity). Mokken analysis was used to test dimensionality and scalability.RESULTS: Our Rasch analysis showed misfit concerning the sleep and appetite items (items 9 and 10). The response categories were disordered for eight items. After modifying the original six-point to a four-point scoring system for all items, we achieved ordered response categories for all ten items. The person separation reliability was acceptable (0.82) for the initial model. Dimensionality testing did not support combining the ten items to create a total score. The scale appeared to be well targeted to this clinical sample. No significant differential item functioning was observed for gender, age, work status and education. The Rasch and Mokken analyses revealed two dimensions, but the Major Depression Inventory showed fit to one scale if items 9 and 10 were excluded.CONCLUSION: Our study indicated scalability problems in the current version of the Major Depression Inventory. The conducted analysis revealed better statistical fit when items 9 and 10 were excluded.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Nielsen, {Marie Germund} and Eva {\O}rnb{\o}l and Mogens Vestergaard and Per Bech and Christensen, {Kaj Aage Sparle}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2017",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.04.001",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "70--81",
journal = "Journal of Psychosomatic Research",
issn = "0022-3999",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The construct validity of the Major Depression Inventory

T2 - A Rasch analysis of a self-rating scale in primary care

AU - Nielsen, Marie Germund

AU - Ørnbøl, Eva

AU - Vestergaard, Mogens

AU - Bech, Per

AU - Christensen, Kaj Aage Sparle

N1 - Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2017/6

Y1 - 2017/6

N2 - OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the measurement properties of the ten-item Major Depression Inventory when used on clinical suspicion in general practice by performing a Rasch analysis.METHODS: General practitioners asked consecutive persons to respond to the web-based Major Depression Inventory on clinical suspicion of depression. We included 22 practices and 245 persons. Rasch analysis was performed using RUMM2030 software. The Rasch model fit suggests that all items contribute to a single underlying trait (defined as internal construct validity). Mokken analysis was used to test dimensionality and scalability.RESULTS: Our Rasch analysis showed misfit concerning the sleep and appetite items (items 9 and 10). The response categories were disordered for eight items. After modifying the original six-point to a four-point scoring system for all items, we achieved ordered response categories for all ten items. The person separation reliability was acceptable (0.82) for the initial model. Dimensionality testing did not support combining the ten items to create a total score. The scale appeared to be well targeted to this clinical sample. No significant differential item functioning was observed for gender, age, work status and education. The Rasch and Mokken analyses revealed two dimensions, but the Major Depression Inventory showed fit to one scale if items 9 and 10 were excluded.CONCLUSION: Our study indicated scalability problems in the current version of the Major Depression Inventory. The conducted analysis revealed better statistical fit when items 9 and 10 were excluded.

AB - OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the measurement properties of the ten-item Major Depression Inventory when used on clinical suspicion in general practice by performing a Rasch analysis.METHODS: General practitioners asked consecutive persons to respond to the web-based Major Depression Inventory on clinical suspicion of depression. We included 22 practices and 245 persons. Rasch analysis was performed using RUMM2030 software. The Rasch model fit suggests that all items contribute to a single underlying trait (defined as internal construct validity). Mokken analysis was used to test dimensionality and scalability.RESULTS: Our Rasch analysis showed misfit concerning the sleep and appetite items (items 9 and 10). The response categories were disordered for eight items. After modifying the original six-point to a four-point scoring system for all items, we achieved ordered response categories for all ten items. The person separation reliability was acceptable (0.82) for the initial model. Dimensionality testing did not support combining the ten items to create a total score. The scale appeared to be well targeted to this clinical sample. No significant differential item functioning was observed for gender, age, work status and education. The Rasch and Mokken analyses revealed two dimensions, but the Major Depression Inventory showed fit to one scale if items 9 and 10 were excluded.CONCLUSION: Our study indicated scalability problems in the current version of the Major Depression Inventory. The conducted analysis revealed better statistical fit when items 9 and 10 were excluded.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.04.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.04.001

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28606502

VL - 97

SP - 70

EP - 81

JO - Journal of Psychosomatic Research

JF - Journal of Psychosomatic Research

SN - 0022-3999

ER -

ID: 51480815