Elliott Robert, Fox Christine M, Beltyukova Svetlana A, Stone Gregory E, Gunderson Jennifer, Zhang Xi
Counselling Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
Psychol Assess. 2006 Dec;18(4):359-72. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.4.359.
Rasch analysis was used to illustrate the usefulness of item-level analyses for evaluating a common therapy outcome measure of general clinical distress, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1994). Using complementary therapy research samples, the instrument's 5-point rating scale was found to exceed clients' ability to make reliable discriminations and could be improved by collapsing it into a 3-point version (combining scale points 1 with 2 and 3 with 4). This revision, in addition to removing 3 misfitting items, increased person separation from 4.90 to 5.07 and item separation from 7.76 to 8.52 (resulting in alphas of .96 and .99, respectively). Some SCL-90-R subscales had low internal consistency reliabilities; SCL-90-R items can be used to define one factor of general clinical distress that is generally stable across both samples, with two small residual factors.
拉施分析用于说明项目层面分析在评估一般临床痛苦的常见治疗结果指标——症状自评量表-90修订版(SCL-90-R;德罗加蒂斯,1994年)方面的有用性。通过补充疗法研究样本发现,该量表的5级评分量表超出了患者做出可靠区分的能力,将其合并为3级版本(将量表分数1与2以及3与4合并)可对其进行改进。这一修订除了删除3个不匹配的项目外,还将人员分离度从4.90提高到5.07,项目分离度从7.76提高到8.52(分别得出α系数为0.96和0.99)。一些SCL-90-R分量表的内部一致性信度较低;SCL-90-R项目可用于定义一个一般临床痛苦因素,该因素在两个样本中总体稳定,还有两个小的残余因素。