Social Indicators Research

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 511–523 | Cite as

Psychometric Properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems Scale: A Rasch Analysis on Adolescent Data

Article

Abstract

The PsychoSomatic Problems (PSP)-scale is built upon eight items intended to tap information about psychosomatic problems among schoolchildren and adolescents in general populations. The purpose of the study is to analyse the psychometric properties of the PSP-scale by means of the Rasch model, with a focus on the operating characteristics of the items. Cross-sectional adolescent data collected in Sweden at six points in time between 1988 and 2005 are used for the analysis. In all more than 15,000 students aged 15–16 are included in the analysis. Data were examined with respect to invariance across the latent trait, Differential Item Functioning (DIF), item categorisation and unidimensionality. The results show that the PSP-scale adequately meets measurement criteria of invariance and proper categorisation of the items. Also the targeting is good and the reliability is high. Since the scale works invariantly across years of investigation it is appropriate for re-current monitoring of psychosomatic health complaints in general populations of adolescents. Taking DIF into account through principles of equating provides a scale that shows no statistically significant signs of gender-DIF enabling invariant comparisons also between boys and girls.

Keywords

Adolescents Psychosomatic Health Rasch Scale Psychometric 

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the youth self report and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  2. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  3. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Andrich, D. (2005). Rasch models for ordered response categories. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2004). RUMM2020: A windows interactive program for analysing data with Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.Google Scholar
  7. Attanasio, V., Andrasik, F., Blanchard, E. B., & Arena, J. G. (1984). Psychometric properties of the SUNYA revision of the psychosomatic symptom checklist. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal, 310, 170.Google Scholar
  9. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagquist, C. (2001). Evaluating composite health measures using Rasch-modelling: an illustrative example. Social and Preveventive Medicine, 46, 369–378.Google Scholar
  12. Hagquist, C. (2007). The psychometric properties of the self-reported SDQ—an analysis of Swedish data based on the Rasch model. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1289–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagquist, C., & Andrich, D. (2004a). Measuring subjective health among adolescents in Sweden: A Rasch-analysis of the HBSC-Instrument. Social Indicators Research, 68, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagquist, C., & Andrich, D. (2004b). Is the sense of coherence-instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch-modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 955–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haugland, S., Wold, B., Stevenson, J., Aaroe, L. E., & Woynarowska, B. (2001) ‘Subjective health complaints in adolescence. A cross-national comparison of prevalence and dimensionality’. European Journal of Public Health, 11, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopland, K., Aaroe, L. E., & Wold, B. (1993). Sosialt nettverk, einsemd og kvardagsplager. Ei epidemiologisk undersöking blant 9. klassingar. [Social network, loneliness and everyday complaints. An epidemiological survey among adolescents]. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 30, 1174–1181.Google Scholar
  18. Hurrelmann, K., Engel, U., Holler, B., & Nordlohne, E. (1988). Failure in school, family conflicts, and psychosomatic disorders in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 11, 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rasch, G. (1960/80). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research). Expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright, (1980). (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  20. Smith, R. M. (2000). Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(2), 199–218.Google Scholar
  21. Wisniewski, J. J., Naglieri, J. A., & Mulick, J. A. (1988). ‘Psychometric properties of a children’s psychosomatic symptom checklist’. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 11, 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations