Detecting Rating Scale Malfunctioning With the Partial Credit Model and Generalized Partial Credit Model

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Volume 83, Issue 5, Page 953-983, October 2023.
Rating scale analysis techniques provide researchers with practical tools for examining the degree to which ordinal rating scales (e.g., Likert-type scales or performance assessment rating scales) function in psychometrically useful ways. When rating scales function as expected, researchers can interpret ratings in the intended direction (i.e., lower ratings mean “less” of a construct than higher ratings), distinguish between categories in the scale (i.e., each category reflects a unique level of the construct), and compare ratings across elements of the measurement instrument, such as individual items. Although researchers have used these techniques in a variety of contexts, studies are limited that systematically explore their sensitivity to problematic rating scale characteristics (i.e., “rating scale malfunctioning”). I used a real data analysis and a simulation study to systematically explore the sensitivity of rating scale analysis techniques based on two popular polytomous item response theory (IRT) models: the partial credit model (PCM) and the generalized partial credit model (GPCM). Overall, results indicated that both models provide valuable information about rating scale threshold ordering and precision that can help researchers understand how their rating scales are functioning and identify areas for further investigation or revision. However, there were some differences between models in their sensitivity to rating scale malfunctioning in certain conditions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Cost of Illness Analysis of Common Mental Disorders: A Study from an Indian Academic Tertiary Care Hospital

Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, Volume 45, Issue 5, Page 519-525, September 2023.
Background:The cost of illness (COI) for common mental disorders (CMDs) that include depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorder is less studied in India. Hence, we studied the COI and disability of CMDs and their relationship in patients with depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 220 patients (110 with depression, 58 with anxiety disorders, and 52 with somatoform disorders) and evaluated disability using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). The schedule for the cost of illness (S-COI) was used for evaluating COI for the last year.Results:The annual COI of CMDs from the patient perspective was ₹21,620 (interquartile range [IQR], ₹47,761; ≈US$290). The median annual direct COI was ₹4,907 (IQR ₹7,502), and indirect COI was ₹12,900 (IQR ₹37744). The direct COI was 18%, whereas the indirect COI was 82%. The direct and indirect COI in the three groups were similar. In all three groups with ongoing treatment, the mean scores indicated a mild level of disability. Total and indirect COI, but not the direct COI, correlated positively with the severity of illness and disability.Conclusion:All the CMDs with ongoing treatment are associated with a mild level of disability and are a significant financial burden, with higher indirect costs.