Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 2/2013

01-03-2013

Further validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in the UK veterinary profession: Rasch analysis

Auteurs: David J. Bartram, Julia M. Sinclair, David S. Baldwin

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2013

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the psychometric properties of the 14-item Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in the UK veterinary profession by the application of Rasch analysis, and to assess the external construct validity of the derived interval scale measurements.

Methods

Data sets were derived from two independent cross-sectional surveys of the veterinary profession (n = 8,829 and n = 1,796). Rasch analysis (n = 500) included response option thresholds ordering, tests of fit, differential item functioning, targeting, response dependency, and person separation index (PSI). Unidimensionality was evaluated by principal component analysis of residuals. The findings were validated across further subsamples from both data sets. The external construct validity of the Rasch-fitting item set was evaluated by associations with other measures of psychological health or psychosocial work characteristics.

Results

Data for the original 14 items deviated significantly from Rasch model expectations (chi-square = 558.2, df = 112, P = <0.001, PSI = 0.918). A unidimensional 7-item scale (Short WEMWBS, SWEMWBS) with acceptable fit to the model (chi-square = 58.8, df = 56, P = 0.104, PSI = 0.832) was derived by sequential removal of the most misfitting items. The external construct validity of SWEMWBS was supported.

Conclusions

SWEMWBS has robust interval-level measurement properties which support its suitability as an indicator of population mental health and well-being in this occupational group with elevated suicide risk.
vorige artikel Cross-cultural development of an EORTC questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with testicular cancer: the EORTC QLQ-TC26
volgende artikel Development of a short form of the Brazilian Parental-Caregiver Perceptions Questionnaire using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
Literatuur
1.
Bartram, D. J., & Baldwin, D. S. (2010). Veterinary surgeons and suicide: A structured review of possible influences on increased risk. Veterinary Record, 166, 388–397.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Platt, B., Hawton, K., Simkin, S., & Mellanby, R. J. (2010). Systematic review of the prevalence of suicide in veterinary surgeons. Occupational Medicine, 60, 436–446.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Charlton, J. (1995). Trends and patterns in suicide in England and Wales. International Journal of Epidemiology, 24(Suppl. 1), S45–S52.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., et al. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Clarke, A., Friede, T., Putz, R., Ashdown, J., Martin, S., Blake, A., et al. (2011). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): validated for teenage school students in England and Scotland. A mixed methods assessment. BMC Public Health, 11, 487.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Bartram, D. J., Yadegarfar, G., Sinclair, J. M. A., & Baldwin, D. S. (2011). Validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) as an overall indicator of population mental health and well-being in the UK veterinary profession. The Veterinary Journal, 187, 397–398.PubMedCrossRef
7.
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), iii, ix–x, 1–177.
8.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
9.
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 and Rheumatism, 57, 1358–1362.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44, S69–S77.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, S78–S94.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Leiter, M. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1996). Consistency of the burnout structure across occupations. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 9, 229–243.CrossRef
14.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.CrossRef
15.
16.
Bartram, D. J., Yadegarfar, G., & Baldwin, D. S. (2009). A cross-sectional study of mental heath and well-being and their associations in the UK veterinary profession. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44, 1075–1085.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–370.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Dikkers, J. S. E., van Hooff, M. L. M., & Kinnunen, U. M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19, 319–339.CrossRef
19.
Cousins, R., Mackay, C. J., Clarke, S. D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. J., & McCaig, R. H. (2004). ‘Management standards’ and work related stress in the UK: Practical development. Work & Stress, 18, 113–136.CrossRef
20.
Singleton, N., Bumpstead, R., O’brien, M., Lee, A., & Meltzer, H. (2001). Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000. London: The Stationery Office.
21.
Lamoureux, E. L., Pesudovs, K., Thumboo, J., Saw, S.-M., & Wong, T. Y. (2009). An evaluation of the reliability and validity of the visual functioning questionnaire (VF-11) using Rasch analysis in an Asian population. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 50, 2607–2613.CrossRef
22.
Cano, S. J., Barrett, L. E., Zajicek, J. P., & Hobart, J. C. (2011). Beyond the reach of traditional analyses: Using Rasch to evaluate the DASH in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 17, 214–222.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 33.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328.
25.
Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., & Tennant, A. (2011). Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) revisited. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 884–891.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pallant, J. F., Miller, R. L., & Tennant, A. (2006). Evaluation of the Edinburgh Post Natal Depression Scale using Rasch analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 6, 28.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2006). Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 1048–1051.
28.
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B. S., & Luo, G. (2010). RUMM2030: A Windows program for the analysis of data according to Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
29.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Muller, S., & Roddy, E. (2009). A Rasch analysis of the Manchester foot pain and disability index. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 2, 29.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Teresi, J. A., & Fleishman, J. A. (2007). Differential item functioning and health assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16, 33–42.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., & Parkinson, J. (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, 15.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16, 5–18.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Andrich, D. (2011). Rating scales and measurement. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 11, 571–585.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Massof, R. W. (2011). Understanding Rasch and item response theory models: Applications to the estimation and validation of interval latent trait measures from responses to rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 18, 1–19.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston, Massachussets: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
38.
Wright, B. D. (1997). A history of social science and measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 33–45.CrossRef
39.
Cano, S. J., & Hobart, J. C. (2011). The problem with health measurement. Patient Preference and Adherence, 5, 279–290.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Bohlig, M., Fisher, W. P., Masters, G. N., & Bond, T. (1998). Content validity and misfitting items. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12, 607.
41.
Heinemann, A. W., & Deutsch, A. (2011). Commentary on ‘Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: The FIM revisited’. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 958–960.PubMed
42.
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Further validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in the UK veterinary profession: Rasch analysis
Auteurs
David J. Bartram
Julia M. Sinclair
David S. Baldwin
Publicatiedatum
01-03-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0144-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2013

Quality of Life Research 2/2013 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Cross-cultural development of an EORTC questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with testicular cancer: the EORTC QLQ-TC26

OriginalPaper

The Fatigue Associated with Depression Questionnaire (FAsD): responsiveness and responder definition

Brief Communication

Reliability and validity of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised for children and parents in Turkey: cross-sectional study

OriginalPaper

The association of self-rated health and lifestyle behaviors among foreign-born Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese Americans

OriginalPaper

Psychological comorbidity in patients with chronic tinnitus: analysis and comparison with chronic pain, asthma or atopic dermatitis patients

OriginalPaper

Physical activity, self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life in persons with multiple sclerosis: analysis of associations between individual-level changes over one year