↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of computerized adaptive testing for general psychological distress: combining GHQ-12 and Affectometer-2 in an item bank for public mental health research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
An evaluation of computerized adaptive testing for general psychological distress: combining GHQ-12 and Affectometer-2 in an item bank for public mental health research
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0158-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Stochl, Jan R. Böhnke, Kate E. Pickett, Tim J. Croudace

Abstract

Recent developments in psychometric modeling and technology allow pooling well-validated items from existing instruments into larger item banks and their deployment through methods of computerized adaptive testing (CAT). Use of item response theory-based bifactor methods and integrative data analysis overcomes barriers in cross-instrument comparison. This paper presents the joint calibration of an item bank for researchers keen to investigate population variations in general psychological distress (GPD). Multidimensional item response theory was used on existing health survey data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey (n = 766) to calibrate an item bank consisting of pooled items from the short common mental disorder screen (GHQ-12) and the Affectometer-2 (a measure of "general happiness"). Computer simulation was used to evaluate usefulness and efficacy of its adaptive administration. A bifactor model capturing variation across a continuum of population distress (while controlling for artefacts due to item wording) was supported. The numbers of items for different required reliabilities in adaptive administration demonstrated promising efficacy of the proposed item bank. Psychometric modeling of the common dimension captured by more than one instrument offers the potential of adaptive testing for GPD using individually sequenced combinations of existing survey items. The potential for linking other item sets with alternative candidate measures of positive mental health is discussed since an optimal item bank may require even more items than these.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Psychology 11 20%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 September 2020.
All research outputs
#13,122,065
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,223
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,021
of 333,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 333,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.