Sheehan T J, DeChello L M, Garcia R, Fifield J, Rothfield N, Reisine S
School of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT 06030, USA.
J Outcome Meas. 2001;5(1):839-63.
This paper describes a comparative analysis of (ADL) and (IADL) items administered to two samples, 4,430 persons representative of older Americans, and 605 persons representative of patients with rheumatoid arthrisit (RA). Responses are scored separately using both Likert and Rasch measurement models. While Likert scoring seems to provide information similar to Rasch, the descriptive statistics are often contrary if not contradictory, and estimates of reliability from Likert are inflated. The test characteristic curves derived from Rasch are similar despite differences between the levels of disability with the two samples. Correlations of Rasch item calibrations across three samples were .71, .76, and .80. The fit between the items and the samples, indicating the compatibility between the test and subjects, is seen much more clearly with Rasch with more than half of the general population measuring the extremes. Since research on disability depends on measures with known properties, the superiority of Rasch over Likert is evident.
本文描述了对两项样本进行的（日常生活活动能力）和（工具性日常生活活动能力）项目的比较分析，其中一项样本为4430名具有美国老年人代表性的人群，另一项样本为605名类风湿性关节炎（RA）患者的代表性人群。使用李克特量表和拉施测量模型分别对回答进行评分。虽然李克特评分似乎能提供与拉施评分相似的信息，但描述性统计数据往往不一致甚至相互矛盾，而且李克特量表得出的信度估计值偏高。尽管两个样本的残疾程度不同，但由拉施模型得出的测试特征曲线相似。三个样本中拉施项目校准的相关性分别为0.71、0.76和0.80。项目与样本之间的拟合度，即测试与受试者之间的兼容性，在拉施模型中更为明显，超过一半的普通人群处于极端水平。由于对残疾的研究依赖于具有已知属性的测量方法，拉施模型相对于李克特量表的优越性显而易见。
