ArticleBMC psychiatry2019
Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure distress, depression, anxiety, and somatization. Prior to computing scale scores from the item scores, the three highest response alternatives ('Regularly', 'Often', and 'Very often or constantly present') are usually collapsed into one category to reduce the influence of extreme responding on item- and scale scores. In this study, we evaluate the usefulness of this transformation for the distress scale based on a variety of criteria.
methodsSpecifically, by using the Graded Response Model, we investigated the effect of this transformation on model fit, local measurement precision, and various indicators of the scale's validity to get an indication on whether the current practice of recoding should be advocated or not. In particular, the effect on the convergent- (operationalized by the General Health Questionnaire and the Maastricht Questionnaire), divergent- (operationalized by the Neuroticism scale of the NEO-FFI), and predictive validity (operationalized as obtrusion with daily chores and activities, the Biographical Problem list and the Utrecht Burnout Scale) of the distress scale was investigated.
resultsResults indicate that recoding leads to (i) better model fit as indicated by lower mean probabilities of exact test statistics assessing item fit, (ii) small (<.02) losses in the sizes of various validity coefficients, and (iii) a decrease (DIFF (SE's) = .10-.25) in measurement precision for medium and high levels of distress.
conclusionsFor clinical applications and applications in longitudinal research, the current practice of recoding should be avoided because recoding decreases measurement precision for medium and high levels of distress. It would be interesting to see whether this advice also holds for the three other domains of the 4DSQ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.