Department of Educational Studies, University of South Carolina.
Psychol Assess. 2018 Apr;30(4):500-511. doi: 10.1037/pas0000493. Epub 2017 May 15.
To assess quality, psychological instruments often include additional scales or validity indices to alert users to the presence of questionable data. Although identified cases are often scrutinized further or removed, it is not fully understood how such cases may affect overall analyses if retained. Using a teacher-report instrument of child behavior, this study examined 5 different validity indices: F-Index, Consistency Index, Response Pattern Index, Rasch Outfit, and Rasch Infit. Results showed that methods largely did not identify similar cases. Removing flagged cases did not have a great effect on reliability estimates or validity coefficients. Hierarchical linear modeling illustrated that differences in validity indices were significantly related to years of teaching experience and level of education for the F-Index. In general, before using social-emotional screeners, teacher training may be useful to help minimize response effects. (PsycINFO Database Record
为了评估质量,心理工具通常包括额外的量表或效度指标,以提醒用户注意可疑数据的存在。虽然已识别的案例通常会进一步审查或删除,但如果保留这些案例,它们将如何影响整体分析尚不完全清楚。本研究使用了一种儿童行为教师报告工具,检查了 5 种不同的效度指标:F 指数、一致性指数、反应模式指数、Rasch 服装和 Rasch 合身。结果表明,这些方法并没有在很大程度上识别出相似的案例。删除标记的案例对可靠性估计或效度系数没有很大影响。层次线性建模表明,F 指数的教学经验年限和教育水平与效度指标的差异有显著关系。一般来说,在使用社会情感筛查器之前,教师培训可能有助于最大限度地减少反应效应。