4.2 Article

Improving the Measurement of Functional Somatic Symptoms With Item Response Theory

期刊

ASSESSMENT
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 1960-1970

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1073191120947153

关键词

functional somatic symptoms; item response theory; graded response model; SCL-90; medically unexplained symptoms

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research NWO [175.010.2007.006]
  2. Ministry of Economic Affairs
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
  4. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports
  5. Northern Netherlands Collaboration of Provinces (SNN)
  6. Province of Groningen
  7. University Medical Center Groningen
  8. University of Groningen
  9. Dutch Kidney Foundation
  10. Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through item response theory analysis, it was found that two items of the somatization scale of the Symptom Checklist-90 were the most discriminative and informative for measuring different severity levels of functional somatic symptoms.
More than 40 questionnaires have been developed to assess functional somatic symptoms (FSS), but there are several methodological issues regarding the measurement of FSS. We aimed to identify which items of the somatization subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) are more informative and discriminative between persons at different levels of severity of FSS. To this end, item response theory was applied to the somatization scale of the SCL-90, collected from a sample of 82,740 adult participants without somatic conditions in the Lifelines Cohort Study. Sensitivity analyses were performed with all the participants who completed the somatization scale. Both analyses showed that Items 11 feeling weak physically and 12 heavy feelings in arms or legs were the most discriminative and informative to measure severity levels of FSS, regardless of somatic conditions. Clinicians and researchers may pay extra attention to these symptoms to augment the assessment of FSS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据