[Rasch] Incredible comments on Rasch

Reeve, Bryce (NIH/NCI) [E] reeveb at mail.nih.gov
Fri Sep 29 21:20:49 EST 2006

Dear Eric and colleagues,


I do not know what you proposed, but from the comments below it seems
like they are saying that a full validation of the IMAQ questionnaire
should include a number of different validation
methodologies/strategies, not just Rasch analysis.  I agree, Rasch
analysis gives you some information but not the full picture.  In
validating the IMAQ, you should consider the questionnaire's construct
validity (e.g., convergent and divergent validity), content validity,
and criterion validity.  These different types of validation require
different methods.  By itself, one method does not address all aspects
of questionnaire validation.






From: Eric Wong [mailto:mcwong at cuhk.edu.hk] 
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:16 AM
To: rasch at acer.edu.au
Subject: [Rasch] Incredible comments on Rasch
Importance: High


	Dear all,
	Unbelievable comments from reviewers of a research grant review
	"The questionnaire should be shortened. The proposed validation
analysis (using Rasch modelling) is not appropriate for a questionnaire
focusing on attitude and behaviour and should be revised."
	"The methods proposed for the adpatation of the content of the
IMAQ (the questionnaire) are well written, but Rasch analysis for the
valdiation/reduction of items is not appropriate because the items on
attitude or usage do not have a linear order, unlike educational
assessment. More standard methods, such as know group comparison or
concurrent validity, for validating the construct/criterion validity of
the IMAQ should be used."
	Any comments?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/pipermail/rasch/attachments/20060929/e0bc845b/attachment.html 

More information about the Rasch mailing list