Logo of Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinLogo of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
edoc-Server
Open-Access-Publikationsserver der Humboldt-Universität
de|en
Header image: facade of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
2019-07Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.1177/1073191118810057
Short Versus Long Scales in Clinical Assessment: Exploring the Trade-Off Between Resources Saved and Psychometric Quality Lost Using Two Measures of Obsessive–Compulsive Symptoms
Kemper, Christoph cc
Trapp, Stefanie
Kathmann, Norbert cc
Samuel, Douglas cc
Ziegler, Matthias cc
Lebenswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Short measures of psychological constructs are routinely used to save assessment time and cost. The downside is a trade-off between resource savings and psychometric quality. When evaluating tests, a pragmatic strategy is frequently applied that neglects the assessment objective, which may result in unfair rejection or unmindfully acceptance of short scales. Our main aim is to demonstrate the consequences of applying a pragmatic test evaluation strategy. We used two tests that measure the same construct—obsessive-compulsive symptomatology—but differ considerably in test length (1:3) and evaluated the measures by taking the assessment objective into account. The two scale scores showed distinct profiles of psychometric qualities. Whereas routinely evaluated reliability, factorial validity, and convergent/discriminant validity did not differ, rendering both tests useful for research purposes, substantial differences were found for qualities that are rarely focused on—measurement precision and diagnostic validity—which are highly relevant for accurate decisions in clinical practice.
Files in this item
Thumbnail
10.1177_1073191118810057.pdf — Adobe PDF — 847.1 Kb
MD5: 3c69d976563231b2d2a82fdbd80093bc
Notes
This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.
Cite
BibTeX
EndNote
RIS
InCopyright
Details
DINI-Zertifikat 2019OpenAIRE validatedORCID Consortium
Imprint Policy Contact Data Privacy Statement
A service of University Library and Computer and Media Service
© Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
 
DOI
10.1177/1073191118810057
Permanent URL
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118810057
HTML
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118810057">https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118810057</a>