Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research pp 1–18Cite as

Rasch Measurement Model

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

Rasch analysis is increasingly used for developing and evaluating interval-level scales to measure abilities. Unlike Classical Test Theory (CTT) that uses correlations between items to select items measuring a latent construct, Rasch analysis applies a statistical model that predicts the precise mathematical relationship between an item and a latent trait to be measured. Proponents of Rasch analysis argue that, compared to the typically long scales with ordinal scores that are produced by CTT methodology, application of Rasch analysis results in shorter, more reliable measures with interval-level scores. With increased application of mindfulness-based interventions, evaluation of their effectiveness requires accurate measurement of mindfulness and associated outcomes. In particular, issues with measurement precision (e.g., ordinal rather than interval scaling), item functioning, and invariance across population groups have not been sufficiently addressed using appropriate modern statistical methods. This chapter focuses on Rasch methodology and its benefits to evaluate and enhance the psychometric properties of mindfulness scales and related outcome measures. It emphasizes the value of Rasch analysis to enhance both reliability and internal validity of psychometric instruments used in mindfulness assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Andrich, D. (1978). Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D. (2004). Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care, I7–I16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D., & Hagquist, C. (2013). Real and artificial differential item functioning. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 37(3), 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2009). RUMM 2030. RUMM Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R., Smith, G., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balalla, S. K., Medvedev, O. N., Siegert, R. J., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2019). Validation of the WHOQoL-BREF and shorter versions using Rasch analysis in traumatic brain injury and orthopaedic populations. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 100(10), 1853–1862.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogden, H. E. (1977). The Rasch model, the law of comparative judgment and additive conjoint measurement. Psychometrika, 42(4), 631–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for Yen’s Q 3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 178–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2006). Classical test theory. Medical Care, S50–S59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finaulahi, K. P., Sumich, A., Heym, N., & Medvedev, O. N. (2021). Investigating psychometric properties of the Self-Compassion Scale using Rasch methodology. Mindfulness, 12(3), 730–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. (1992). Reliability statistics. Rasch Measurement. Transactions, 6(3), 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, H. E., Marais, I., & Ireland, M. J. (2017). A Rasch model analysis of the mindful attention awareness scale. Assessment, 24(3), 387–398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, J. E. (1980). Testing and obtaining fit of data to the Rasch model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33(2), 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technology Assessment, 13(12), 1–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobart, J. C., Cano, S. J., & Thompson, A. J. (2010). Effect sizes can be misleading: Is it time to change the way we measure change? Journal of Neurological & Neurosurgical Psychiatry, 81, 1044–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, E. G., Lyndon, M. P., Henning, M. A., & Medvedev, O. N. (2021). Applying Rasch analysis to evaluate and enhance the Academic Motivation Scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A., Chien, C. W., & Brauer, S. G. (2013). Rasch-based scoring offered more precision in differentiating patient groups in measuring upper limb function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(6), 681–687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., Krägeloh, C. U., Medvedev, O. N., Duncan, L. G., & Singh, N. N. (2019). Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting scale: Testing the psychometric properties of a Korean version. Mindfulness, 10(3), 516–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, Y. Y., Png, M.-E., Conaghan, P., & Tennant, A. (2014). A systematic literature review on the application of Rasch analysis in musculoskeletal disease – A special interest group report of OMERACT 11. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(1), 159–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M. (2011). Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program, version 3.73.0. Winsteps.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widamon, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighting the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theory of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren Nilsson, Å., & Tennant, A. (2011). Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) revisited. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(10), 884–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., Grimby, G., Ring, H., Tesio, L., Lawton, G., Slade, A., Penta, M., Tripolski, M., Biering-Sørensen, F., Carter, J., Marincek, C., Phillips, S., Simone, A., & Tennant, A. (2005). Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: A study using Rasch analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., Jonsdottir, I. H., Ahlborg, G., & Tennant, A. (2013). Construct validity of the Psychological General Well Being Index (PGWBI) in a sample of patients undergoing treatment for stress-related exhaustion: A Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mansolf, M., & Reise, S. P. (2017). When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61, 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Effects of varying magnitude and patterns of response dependence in the unidimensional Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(2), 105–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Bergomi, C., Röthlin, P., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2019). Assessing the psychometric properties of the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences (CHIME) using Rasch analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(5), 650–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Pratscher, S. D., & Bettencourt, A. (2020). Psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Mindfulness Scale using Rasch analysis. Mindfulness, 11(8), 2007–2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Roemer, A., Krägeloh, C. U., Sandham, M. H., & Siegert, R. J. (2021). Enhancing the precision of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) using Rasch analysis. Current Psychology, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Siegert, R. J., Feng, X. J., Billington, D. R., Jang, J. Y., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2016). Measuring trait mindfulness: How to improve the precision of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale using a Rasch model. Mindfulness, 7(2), 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Siegert, R. J., Kersten, P., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2016). Rasch analysis of the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Mindfulness, 7(2), 466–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Siegert, R. J., Kersten, P., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2017). Improving the precision of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using a Rasch approach. Mindfulness, 8(4), 995–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Titkova, E. A., Siegert, R. J., Hwang, Y. S., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2018). Evaluating short versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Mindfulness, 9(5), 1411–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, O. N., Turner-Stokes, L., & Siegert, R. J. (2018). Rasch analysis of the UK Functional Assessment Measure in patients with complex disability after stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2324

  • Norquist, J. M., Fitzpatrick, R., Dawson, J., & Jenkinson, C. (2004). Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Medical Care, 42(1), 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, T., Reilly-Spong, M., & Gross, C. R. (2013). Mindfulness: A systematic review of instruments to measure an emergent patient-reported outcome (PRO). Quality of Life Research, 22, 2639–2659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raman, K., Siegert, R. J., Saha, P. K., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2021). Validation of the English-language version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in India: A Rasch analysis. Mindfulness. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01757-8

  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Danish Institute for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, S., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Ives, J., & Kohls, N. (2013). Specific objectivity of mindfulness – A Rasch analysis of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Mindfulness, 4(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. (2019). Psychometric packages in R. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 17(2), 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegert, R. J., Tennant, A., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2010). Rasch analysis of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in a neurological rehabilitation sample. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(1), 8–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluation the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish health education population survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(1), 15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Swerdlik, M. E., & Cohen, R. J. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis & Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2006). Unidimensionality matters! (a tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 1048–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner-Stokes, L., Nyein, K., Turner-Stokes, T., & Gatehouse, C. (1999). The UK FIM+FAM: Development and evaluation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 277–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. (1987). Item clusters and computer adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(3), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures. LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D. (1996). Local dependency, correlations and principal components. Rasch Measurement Transaction, 10, 509–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. MESA Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hillcrest, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Oleg N. Medvedev

  2. School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Christian U. Krägeloh

Authors
  1. Oleg N. Medvedev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian U. Krägeloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oleg N. Medvedev .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Oleg N. Medvedev

  2. North Shore Campus, Auckland Univ of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Christian U. Krägeloh

  3. Dept of Psychology and Neuroscience, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Richard J. Siegert

  4. Augusta University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Nirbhay N. Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Medvedev, O.N., Krägeloh, C.U. (2022). Rasch Measurement Model. In: Medvedev, O.N., Krägeloh, C.U., Siegert, R.J., Singh, N.N. (eds) Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_4-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_4-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77644-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77644-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation