IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v21y2012i19pt20p2736-2746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Item response theory: How Mokken scaling can be used in clinical practice

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Watson
  • L Andries van der Ark
  • Li‐Chan Lin
  • Robert Fieo
  • Ian J Deary
  • Rob R Meijer

Abstract

Aims. To demonstrate the principles and application of Mokken scaling. Background. The history and development of Mokken scaling is described, some examples of applications are given, and some recent development of the method are summarised. Design. Secondary analysis of data obtained by cross‐sectional survey methods, including self‐report and observation. Methods. Data from the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale and the Townsend Functional Ability Scale were analysed using the Mokken scaling procedure within the ‘R’ statistical package. Specifically, invariant item ordering (the extent to which the order of the items in terms of difficulty was the same for all respondents whatever their total scale score) was studied. Results. The Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale and the Townsend Functional Ability Scale showed no violations of invariant item ordering, although only the Townsend Functional Ability Scale showed a medium accuracy. Conclusion. Mokken scaling is an established method for item response theory analysis with wide application in the social sciences. It provides psychometricians with an additional tool in the development of questionnaires and in the study of individuals and their responses to latent traits. Specifically, with regard to the analyses conducted in this study, the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale requires further development and study across different levels of severity of dementia and feeding difficulty. Relevance to clinical practice. Good scales are required for assessment in clinical practice and the present paper shows how a relatively recently developed method for analysing Mokken scales can contribute to this. The two scales used as examples for analysis are highly clinically relevant.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Watson & L Andries van der Ark & Li‐Chan Lin & Robert Fieo & Ian J Deary & Rob R Meijer, 2012. "Item response theory: How Mokken scaling can be used in clinical practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(19pt20), pages 2736-2746, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:19pt20:p:2736-2746
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03893.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03893.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03893.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susan D Shenkin & Roger Watson & Ken Laidlaw & John M Starr & Ian J Deary, 2014. "The Attitudes to Ageing Questionnaire: Mokken Scaling Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Joline Goossens & Sofie Verhaeghe & Ann Van Hecke & Geraldine Barrett & Ilse Delbaere & Dimitri Beeckman, 2018. "Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy in women with pregnancies ending in birth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Wen Liu & Roger Watson & Feng‐lan Lou, 2014. "The Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia scale (EdFED): cross‐cultural validation of the simplified Chinese version in mainland China," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1-2), pages 45-53, January.
    4. Alessandro Chiarotto & Annette Bishop & Nadine E Foster & Kirsty Duncan & Ebenezer Afolabi & Raymond W Ostelo & Muirne C S Paap, 2018. "Item response theory evaluation of the biomedical scale of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:19pt20:p:2736-2746. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.