9-point Rating Scale Research Articles

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study

BackgroundAs the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS, (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques.MethodsSemi-structured patient interviews and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point rating scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes.ResultsFour of the eight patient interview derived outcomes were included in the preliminary COS, however, none of these outcomes were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale.ConclusionsUsing patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature did not appear to influence outcome selection in developing the COS in this study. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, did appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Future research to substantiate our findings and to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development, however, is warranted.

Reconsidering the Psychometrics of the GRS-S: Evidence for Parsimony in Measurement

The authors evaluated measurement-level, factor-level, item-level, and scale-level revisions to the Gifted Rating Scales–School Form (GRS-S). Measurement-level considerations tested the extent to which treating the Likert-type scale rating as categorical or continuous produced different fit across unidimensional, correlated trait, and bifactor latent factor structures. Item- and scale-level analyses demonstrated that the GRS-S could be reduced from a 72-item assessment on a 9-point rating scale down to a 30-item assessment on a 3-point rating scale. Reliability from the reduced assessment was high (ω > .95). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve comparisons between the original and reduced versions of the GRS-S showed that diagnostic accuracy (i.e., area under the curve) of the scales was comparable when considering cut scores of 120, 125, and 130 on the WISC-IV Full Scale ( Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Child–Fourth Edition) and verbal IQ and the WIAT-III (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition) composite score. The findings suggest that a brief form of the GRS-S can be used as a universal or selective screener for giftedness without sacrificing key psychometric considerations.

Measurement and modification of speech naturalness during stuttering therapy.

This paper describes two studies that illustrate the utility of listener ratings of speech naturalness for measuring and modifying speech naturalness during a stuttering therapy program. The program involved 5 adolescent stutterers who were receiving an intensive treatment incorporating a prolonged speech procedure. In Study A, a clinician used a 9-point rating scale to score the speech naturalness of 1-min speaking samples each stutterer made at intervals over the course of the program. The results demonstrated predictable trends in speech naturalness during the program, but they also showed that natural sounding speech is not a predictable outcome of a procedure that removes stuttering, controls speaking rate, and exposes clients to transfer procedures. In Study B, 3 of the 5 stutterers participated in single subject experiments partway through their therapy program. These experiments were designed to assess the effect of regular feedback of speech naturalness ratings on the stutterer's spontaneous speech. The results showed that each subject's speech naturalness ratings could be modified toward a target level of speech naturalness.