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 5/2007

01-06-2007 | Original Paper

Mode effects in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale: personal digital assistant vs. paper and pencil administration

Auteurs: Richard J. Swartz, Carl de Moor, Karon F. Cook, Rachel T. Fouladi, Karen Basen-Engquist, Cathy Eng, Cindy L. Carmack Taylor

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2007

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

As interest grows in creating computerized versions of established paper-and-pencil (P&P) questionnaires, it becomes increasingly important to explore whether changing the administration modes of questionnaires affects participants’ responses. This study investigated whether mode effects exist when administering the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale by a personal digital assistant (PDA) versus the classic P&P mode. The Differential Functioning of Items and Tests (DFIT) procedure identified mode effects on the overall test and individual items. A mixed-effects regression model summarized the mode effects in terms of CES-D scores, and identified interactions with covariates. When the P&P questionnaire was administered first, scores were higher on average (2.4–2.8 points) than those of the other administrations (PDA second, PDA first, and P&P second), and all 20 questionnaire items exhibited a statistically significant mode effect. Highly educated people and younger people demonstrated a smaller difference in scores between the two modes. The mode-by-order effect influenced the interpretation of CES-D scores, especially when screening for depression using the established cut-off scores. These results underscore the importance of evaluating the cross-mode equivalence of psychosocial instruments before administering them in non-established modes.
vorige artikel Quality of life in couples living with Huntington’s disease: the role of patients’ and partners’ illness perceptions
volgende artikel The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients
Literatuur
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.) (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
American Psychological Association (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington, D.C.: Author.
3.
Aquilino, W. S. (1998). Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults. Journal of Official Statistics, 14, 15–29.
4.
Axelson, D. A., Bertocci, M. A., Lewin, D. S., Trubnick, L. S., Birmaher, B., Williamson, D. E., Ryan, N. D., & Dahl, R. E. (2003). Measuring mood and complex behavior in natural environments: use of ecological momentary assessment in pediatric affective disorders. Journal of Child Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 13, 253–266CrossRef
5.
Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.
6.
Bergstrom, B. A. (1996). Computerized adaptive testing for the national certification examination. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists Journal, 64, 119–124.
7.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models (p 320). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
Chan, K. S., Orlando, M., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Duan, N. H., & Sherbourne, C. D. (2004). The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale: an item response theory analysis. Medical Care, 42, 281–289.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Dilalla, D. L. (1996). Computerized administration of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Assessment, 3, 365–374.
10.
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Probst, T. M. (2000). Does computerizing paper-and-pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analyses offer insight. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 305–313.PubMedCrossRef
11.
du Toit, M. (Ed.) (2003). IRT from SSI: BILOG-MG, PARSCALE, MULTILOG, and TESTFACT. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
12.
Embretson, S. E., Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah NJ: L Erlbaum Associates.
13.
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2005). IRT-related factor analytic procedures for testing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil and internet-administered questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 10, 193–205.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fisher, L., & van Belle, G.(1993). Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences. New York: J. Wiley.
15.
Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous–DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309–326.CrossRef
16.
Geerlings, S. W., Beekman, A. T. F., Deeg, D. J. H., van Tilburg, W., & Smit, J. H. (1999). The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in a mixed-mode repeated measurements design: sex and age effects in older adults. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 102–109.CrossRef
17.
Green, A. S., Rafaeli, E., Bolger, N., Shrout, P. E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries. Psychological Methods, 11, 87–105.
18.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
19.
Hansen, J. I. C., Neuman, J. L., Haverkamp, B. E., & Lubinski, B. R. (1997). Comparison of user reaction to two methods of strong interest inventory administration and report feedback. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 115–127.
20.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
21.
Husaini, B. A., Neff, J. A., Harrington, J. B., Hughes, M. D., & Stone, R. H. (1980). Depression in rural communities: validating the CES-D scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 20–27.
22.
van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (Eds.) (2000). Computerized Adaptive Testing : Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
23.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
24.
Meijer, R. R., & Nering, M. L. (1999). Computerized adaptive testing: Overview and introduction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 187–194.CrossRef
25.
Orlando, M., Sherbourne, C. D., & Thissen, D. (2000). Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurement. Psychological Assessment, 12, 354–359.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Parks, B. T., Mead, D. E., & Johnson, B. L. (1985). Validation of a computer administered marital adjustment test. Journal of Marital Family Therapy, 11, 207–210.
27.
Pinsoneault, T. B. (1996). Equivalency of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil administered versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 291–300CrossRef
28.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRef
29.
Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368.CrossRef
30.
Rencher, A. C. (1995) Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.
31.
Roberts, R., & Vernon, S. (1983). The center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: its use in a community sample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 41–46.PubMed
32.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement 17, 1–100.
33.
Schmitz, N., Hartkamp, N., Brinschwitz, C., & Michalek, S. (1999). Computerized administration of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C) in psychosomatic outpatients. Psychiatry Research, 87, 217–221.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Schwarz, N., & Hippler, H. J. (1995). Subsequent questions may influence answers to preceding questions in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 93–97.CrossRef
35.
Smyth, J. M., & Stone A. (2003). Ecological momentary assessment research in behavioral medicine. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 35–52.CrossRef
36.
Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Neale, J. M., Shiffman, S., Marco, C. A., Hickcox, M., Paty, J., Porter, L. S., & Cruise, L. J. (1998). A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1670–1680.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Stone, A. A., Turkkan, J. S., Bachrach, C. A., Jobe, J. B., Kurtzman, H. S., Cain, V. S. (Eds.) (2000). The science of self-report: implications for research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Teresi, J. A., Kleinman, M., & Ocepek-Welikson, K. (2000). Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 1651–1683.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Eignor, D., Faugher, R., Green, B. F., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.
40.
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Bayliss, M. S., Batenhorst, A., Dahlof, C. G., Tepper, S., & Dowson, A. (2003). Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research, 12, 935–952.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Mode effects in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale: personal digital assistant vs. paper and pencil administration
Auteurs
Richard J. Swartz
Carl de Moor
Karon F. Cook
Rachel T. Fouladi
Karen Basen-Engquist
Cathy Eng
Cindy L. Carmack Taylor
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2007
Uitgeverij
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9158-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2007

Quality of Life Research 5/2007 Naar de uitgave

Original Paper

The OVIS study: health related quality of life measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 in German female patients with breast cancer from Schleswig-Holstein

Original Paper

The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients

Original Paper

Does an informative video before inguinal hernia surgical repair influence postoperative quality of life? Results of a prospective randomized study

Erratum

Health-related quality of life among disease-free stomach cancer survivors in Korea

Original Paper

Low level of quality of life in patients with mental and behavioral disorders wanting complementary and alternative (kampo) therapy

OriginalPaper

Quality-of-life outcome after hallux valgus surgery