Institute for Applied Training Science, Leipzig, Germany.
Laterality. 2010 Nov;15(6):610-28. doi: 10.1080/13576500903081806. Epub 2009 Aug 6.
Handedness is frequently measured with sum scores or quotients taken from laterality questionnaires like the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI). In classical test theory such data cannot be used to confirm either the unidimensionality (i.e., quantitative differentiation with the poles left-handed and right-handed) or multidimensionality (i.e., typological differentiation between left-, right-, and mixed-handers) of this personal characteristic. This study uses item response theory models to test the construct validity of the EHI on an item level in order to gather empirical support for the differentiation of handedness as well as the appropriateness of the items and the response format. The EHI was given to 540 participants (303 male and 237 female) aged 17-37 years. Results of mixed-Rasch analyses revealed that the best model was a two-class solution; that is, left- and right-handers (types) with quantitative differences between persons. Hence, unlike earlier model tests, this rejects both the unidimensionality of the handedness construct and the need to consider so-called mixed-handers. It is proposed that mixed-Rasch analyses should be applied more frequently to test the construct validity of other as well as more extensive handedness questionnaires.
惯用手通常通过利手问卷(如爱丁堡手性问卷)的总和得分或商数来衡量。在经典测试理论中,此类数据不能用于确认该个人特征的单维性(即,具有左撇子和右撇子两极的定量差异)或多维性(即,左撇子、右撇子和混合利手者之间的类型学差异)。本研究使用项目反应理论模型在项目水平上测试 EHI 的结构效度,以收集关于惯用手区分以及项目和反应格式适当性的经验支持。EHI 被给予了 540 名年龄在 17 至 37 岁之间的参与者(303 名男性和 237 名女性)。混合 Rasch 分析的结果表明,最佳模型是两类别解决方案;即,左撇子和右撇子(类型)之间存在个体之间的定量差异。因此,与早期的模型测试不同,这既拒绝了惯用手结构的单维性,也拒绝了需要考虑所谓的混合利手者。建议更频繁地应用混合 Rasch 分析来测试其他以及更广泛的惯用手问卷的结构效度。