↓ Skip to main content

Comparing five depression measures in depressed Chinese patients using item response theory: an examination of item properties, measurement precision and score comparability

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing five depression measures in depressed Chinese patients using item response theory: an examination of item properties, measurement precision and score comparability
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0631-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yue Zhao, Wai Chan, Barbara Chuen Yee Lo

Abstract

Item response theory (IRT) has been increasingly applied to patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. The purpose of this study is to apply IRT to examine item properties (discrimination and severity of depressive symptoms), measurement precision and score comparability across five depression measures, which is the first study of its kind in the Chinese context. A clinical sample of 207 Hong Kong Chinese outpatients was recruited. Data analyses were performed including classical item analysis, IRT concurrent calibration and IRT true score equating. The IRT assumptions of unidimensionality and local independence were tested respectively using confirmatory factor analysis and chi-square statistics. The IRT linking assumptions of construct similarity, equity and subgroup invariance were also tested. The graded response model was applied to concurrently calibrate all five depression measures in a single IRT run, resulting in the item parameter estimates of these measures being placed onto a single common metric. IRT true score equating was implemented to perform the outcome score linking and construct score concordances so as to link scores from one measure to corresponding scores on another measure for direct comparability. Findings suggested that (a) symptoms on depressed mood, suicidality and feeling of worthlessness served as the strongest discriminating indicators, and symptoms concerning suicidality, changes in appetite, depressed mood, feeling of worthlessness and psychomotor agitation or retardation reflected high levels of severity in the clinical sample. (b) The five depression measures contributed to various degrees of measurement precision at varied levels of depression. (c) After outcome score linking was performed across the five measures, the cut-off scores led to either consistent or discrepant diagnoses for depression. The study provides additional evidence regarding the psychometric properties and clinical utility of the five depression measures, offers methodological contributions to the appropriate use of IRT in PRO measures, and helps elucidate cultural variation in depressive symptomatology. The approach of concurrently calibrating and linking multiple PRO measures can be applied to the assessment of PROs other than the depression context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,885,520
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,509
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,554
of 308,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#43
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.