Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire

Jan van Bebber, Johanna T. W. Wigman, Rob R. Meijer, Berend Terluin, Sjoerd Sytema, Lex Wunderink

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: The 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. Methods: Specifically, 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. Results: Results 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. Conclusions: For 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.
Original languageEnglish
Article number103
JournalBMC Psychiatry
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Cite this

van Bebber, Jan ; Wigman, Johanna T. W. ; Meijer, Rob R. ; Terluin, Berend ; Sytema, Sjoerd ; Wunderink, Lex. / Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire. In: BMC Psychiatry. 2019 ; Vol. 19, No. 1.
@article{f0a82ec2605547498454b800b220c693,
title = "Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire",
abstract = "Background: The 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. Methods: Specifically, 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. Results: Results 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. Conclusions: For 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.",
author = "{van Bebber}, Jan and Wigman, {Johanna T. W.} and Meijer, {Rob R.} and Berend Terluin and Sjoerd Sytema and Lex Wunderink",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1186/s12888-019-2070-2",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
journal = "BMC Psychiatry",
issn = "1471-244X",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire. / van Bebber, Jan; Wigman, Johanna T. W.; Meijer, Rob R.; Terluin, Berend; Sytema, Sjoerd; Wunderink, Lex.

In: BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 19, No. 1, 103, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Searching for the optimal number of response alternatives for the distress scale of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire

AU - van Bebber, Jan

AU - Wigman, Johanna T. W.

AU - Meijer, Rob R.

AU - Terluin, Berend

AU - Sytema, Sjoerd

AU - Wunderink, Lex

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Background: The 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. Methods: Specifically, 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. Results: Results 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. Conclusions: For 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.

AB - Background: The 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. Methods: Specifically, 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. Results: Results 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. Conclusions: For 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.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85063725639&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30925915

U2 - 10.1186/s12888-019-2070-2

DO - 10.1186/s12888-019-2070-2

M3 - Article

VL - 19

JO - BMC Psychiatry

JF - BMC Psychiatry

SN - 1471-244X

IS - 1

M1 - 103

ER -