SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

Development of a “Perceived Stress Scale" Based on Classical Test Theory and Graded Response Model

Metin YAŞAR
Pages
522–538
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, there is a high correlation between the item parameters calculated according to both approaches, and the perceived stress scale (PSS) that is being developed can measure the desired features.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main purpose of this study is to develop a perceived stress scale based on Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Graded Response Model (GRM); to compare the parameters of the items in the scale that are tried to be developed according to both models, and to determine under which theory the measurement tool produces more reliable and valid results according to these compared item parameters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The item discrimination parameter value calculated according to CTT ranges from 0.472 to 0.735.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, there is a high correlation between the item parameters calculated according to both approaches, and the perceived stress scale (PSS) that is being developed can measure the desired features.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Classical test theory · Item response theory · Item difficulty

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to develop a perceived stress scale based on Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Graded Response Model (GRM); to compare the parameters of the items in the scale that are tried to be developed according to both models, and to determine under which theory the measurement tool produces more reliable and valid results according to these compared item parameters. The item discrimination parameter value calculated according to CTT ranges from 0.472 to 0.735. On the other hand, item discrimination parameter values calculated under GRM vary between 1.062 (Item 15) and 2.606 (Item 2). Correlations between item thresholds were tested and the calculated correlation coefficients were; r =0.840 for β1 (p<0.01), r = 0.947 for β2 (p<0.01), r = 0.713 for β3 (p<0.05), and r = 0.559 for β4 (p<0.05) respectively. It can be assumed that these values not only support the item invariance of the items in the scale, but also show that the GRM is suitable for the data used for the scaling of the items. The reliability coefficient of the scale, in terms of internal consistency, was calculated as 0.919 according to the CTT, while the marginal reliability coefficient calculated as 0.931 according to GRM. Both reliability coefficients are quite high. In conclusion, there is a high correlation between the item parameters calculated according to both approaches, and the perceived stress scale (PSS) that is being developed can measure the desired features.

Özet

The main purpose of this study is to develop a perceived stress scale based on Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Graded Response Model (GRM); to compare the parameters of the items in the scale that are tried to be developed according to both models, and to determine under which theory the measurement tool produces more reliable and valid results according to these compared item parameters. The item discrimination parameter value calculated according to CTT ranges from 0.472 to 0.735. On the other hand, item discrimination parameter values calculated under GRM vary between 1.062 (Item 15) and 2.606 (Item 2). Correlations between item thresholds were tested and the calculated correlation coefficients were; r =0.840 for β1 (p<0.01), r = 0.947 for β2 (p<0.01), r = 0.713 for β3 (p<0.05), and r = 0.559 for β4 (p<0.05) respectively. It can be assumed that these values not only support the item invariance of the items in the scale, but also show that the GRM is suitable for the data used for the scaling of the items. The reliability coefficient of the scale, in terms of internal consistency, was calculated as 0.919 according to the CTT, while the marginal reliability coefficient calculated as 0.931 according to GRM. Both reliability coefficients are quite high. In conclusion, there is a high correlation between the item parameters calculated according to both approaches, and the perceived stress scale (PSS) that is being developed can measure the desired features.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAŞAR, M. (2022). Development of a “Perceived Stress Scale" Based on Classical Test Theory and Graded Response Model. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 522–538. https://ajindex.com/articles/540179

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akdağ, F., & Yüksel, M. (2010). İnsan kaynakları yönetimi açısından işkoliklik ve algılanan stres ilişkisinde kontrol odağının rolü. [Framing Focus of Control & Workaholism Positively with Reference to Perceived Stress]. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 47-55.
  2. Bichi, A.A., Embong, R, Mamat, M & Maiwada, D.A. (2015). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory: A Review of empirical studies. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9 (7), 549-556.
  3. Bichi, A.A. & Talib, R. (2018). Item response theory: An introduction to latent trait models to test and item development. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 7(2), 142-151.
  4. Bilgen, Ö.B., & Doğan, N., (2017). Çok kategorili parametrik ve parametrik olmayan madde tepki kuramı modellerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of polytomous parametric and nonparametric item response theory models]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 8(3), 354-372.
  5. Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.
  6. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. USA: Rinehart and Winston Inc. Demars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Understanding statistics measurement. (Turkish translation editor: H. Kellecioğlu). Oxford University Press Doğan, N. & Tezbaşaran, A. (2003). Klasik test kuramı ve örtük özellikler kuramının örneklemler bağlamında karşılaştırılması [Comparison of classical test theory and latent traits theory by Samples]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(25), 58-67.
  7. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Erci, B. (2006) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of perceived stress scale. Atatürk Üniv. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 9 (1), 52-67.
  8. Erkuş, A., Sünbül, Ö., Sünbül, S., Yormaz, S., & Aşiret, S. (2017) Psikolojide ve Ölçme Ve Ölçek Geliştirme-II [Testing and Scale Development in Psychology]. Ankara:
  9. Pegem Akademi Eskin, M., Harlak, H., Demirkıran, F., & Dereboy, Ç. (2013). Algılanan stres ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik Analizi [The adaptation of the perceived stress scale into Turkish: A reliability and validity analysis]. New/Yeni Journal, 51 (3), 132-140
  10. Fan, X. T. (1998). Item response theory