A novel nonparametric item response theory approach to measuring socioeconomic position: a comparison using household expenditure data from a Vietnam health survey, 2003

BACKGROUND: Measures of household socio-economic position (SEP) are widely used in health research. There exist a number of approaches to their measurement, with Principal Components Analysis (PCA) applied to a basket of household assets being one of the most common. PCA, however, carries a number of assumptions about the distribution of the data which may be untenable, and alternative, non-parametric, approaches may be preferred. Mokken scale analysis is a non-parametric, item response theory approach to scale development which appears never to have been applied to household asset data. A Mokken scale can be used to rank order items (measures of wealth) as well as households. Using data on household asset ownership from a national sample of 4,154 consenting households in the World Health Survey from Vietnam, 2003, we construct two measures of household SEP. Seventeen items asking about assets, and utility and infrastructure use were used. Mokken Scaling and PCA were applied to the data. A single item measure of total household expenditure is used as a point of contrast. RESULTS: An 11 item scale, out of the 17 items, was identified that conformed to the assumptions of a Mokken Scale. All the items in the scale were identified as strong items (Hi > .5). Two PCA measures of SEP were developed as a point of contrast. One PCA measure was developed using all 17 available asset items, the other used the reduced set of 11 items identified in the Mokken scale analaysis. The Mokken Scale measure of SEP and the 17 item PCA measure had a very high correlation (r = .98), and they both correlated moderately with total household expenditure: r = .59 and r = .57 respectively. In contrast the 11 item PCA measure correlated moderately with the Mokken scale (r = .68), and weakly with the total household expenditure (r = .18). CONCLUSION: The Mokken scale measure of household SEP performed at least as well as PCA, and outperformed the PCA measure developed with the 11 items used in the Mokken scale. Unlike PCA, Mokken scaling carries no assumptions about the underlying shape of the distribution of the data, and can be used simultaneous to order household SEP and items. The approach, however, has not been tested with data from other countries and remains an interesting, but under researched approach

The factor structure of the Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale in thirteen distinct populations

There is considerable evidence that self-criticism plays a major role in the vulnerability to and recovery from psychopathology. Methods to measure this process, and its change over time, are therefore important for research in psychopathology and well-being. This study examined the factor structure of a widely used measure, the Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale in thirteen nonclinical samples (N = 7510) from twelve different countries: Australia (N = 319), Canada (N = 383), Switzerland (N = 230), Israel (N = 476), Italy (N = 389), Japan (N = 264), the Netherlands (N = 360), Portugal (N = 764), Slovakia (N = 1326), Taiwan (N = 417), the United Kingdom 1 (N = 1570), the United Kingdom 2 (N = 883), and USA (N = 331). This study used more advanced analyses than prior reports: a bifactor item-response theory model, a two-tier item-response theory model, and a non-parametric item-response theory (Mokken) scale analysis. Although the original three-factor solution for the FSCRS (distinguishing between Inadequate-Self, Hated-Self, and Reassured-Self) had an acceptable fit, two-tier models, with two general factors (Self-criticism and Self-reassurance) demonstrated the best fit across all samples. This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that this two-factor structure can be used in a range of nonclinical contexts across countries and cultures. Inadequate-Self and Hated-Self might not by distinct factors in nonclinical samples. Future work may benefit from distinguishing between self-correction versus shame-based self-criticism.Peer reviewe

An Isotonic Partial Credit Model for Ordering Subjects on the Basis of Their Sum Scores

In practice, the sum of the item scores is often used as a basis for comparing subjects. For items that have more than two ordered score categories, only the partial credit model (PCM) and special cases of this model imply that the subjects are stochastically ordered on the common latent variable. However, the PCM is very restrictive with respect to the constraints that it imposes on the data. In this paper, sufficient conditions for the stochastic ordering of subjects by their sum score are obtained. These conditions define the isotonic (nonparametric) PCM model. The isotonic PCM is more flexible than the PCM, which makes it useful for a wider variety of tests. Also, observable properties of the isotonic PCM are derived in the form of inequality constraints. It is shown how to obtain estimates of the score distribution under these constraints by using the Gibbs sampling algorithm. A small simulation study shows that the Bayesian p-values based on the log-likelihood ratio statistic can be used to assess the fit of the isotonic PCM to the data, where model-data fit can be taken as a justification of the use of the sum score to order subjects

Methods for Estimating Item-Score Reliability

Reliability is usually estimated for a test score, but it can also be estimated for item scores. Item-score reliability can be useful to assess the item’s contribution to the test score’s reliability, for identifying unreliable scores in aberrant item-score patterns in person-fit analysis, and for selecting the most reliable item from a test to use as a single-item measure. Four methods were discussed for estimating item-score reliability: the Molenaar–Sijtsma method (method MS), Guttman’s method λ6, the latent class reliability coefficient (method LCRC), and the correction for attenuation (method CA). A simulation study was used to compare the methods with respect to median bias, variability (interquartile range [IQR]), and percentage of outliers. The simulation study consisted of six conditions: standard, polytomous items, unequal α parameters, two-dimensional data, long test, and small sample size. Methods MS and CA were the most accurate. Method LCRC showed almost unbiased results, but large variability. Method λ6 consistently underestimated item-score reliabilty, but showed a smaller IQR than the other methods