Skip Navigation



Health Education Research Advance Access published online on August 22, 2006
Health Education Research, doi:10.1093/her/cyl088
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/suppl_1/i110    most recent
cyl088v2
cyl088v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mâsse, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mâsse, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received February 16, 2006
Accepted July 19, 2006

Original article

Introducing equating methodologies to compare test scores from two different self-regulation scales

Louise C. Mâsse 1 *, Diane Allen 2, Mark Wilson 2, and Geoffrey Williams 3

1 Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Centre for Community Child Health Research, L408, 4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3V4, Canada
2 Graduate School of Education, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
3 Clinical and Social Psychology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Louise C. Mâsse, E-mail: lmasse{at}cw.bc.ca


  Abstract

Standardizing the measurement tools that researchers use to assess the effectiveness of interventions would strengthen our ability to compare results across studies. In practice, however, standardization is difficult to implement, in part, because researchers prefer to use measurement tools that focus specifically on the components of their interventions. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of item response modeling linking methodology in comparing groups of participants who were administered different scales intended to measure the same underlying constructs. The Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) as it relates to diet improvement provided the empirical application to demonstrate how two different scales that measure the same construct can be compared. The results showed that two eight-item TSRQ scales can be linked if they have at least four items in common. As expected, varying the number of linking items did not affect the reliability of the results; however, it significantly affected the relative rating with respect to the 15-item scale. In health behavior and health education research, linking methodologies can be used to compare results across studies that use slightly different versions of a scale to measure the same construct.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
L. C. Masse, M. Wilson, T. Baranowski, and L. Nebeling
Improving psychometric methods in health education and health behavior research.
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i1 - i3.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
M. Wilson, D. D. Allen, and J. C. Li
Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: introducing item response modeling
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i4 - i18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
A. L. Dunn, K. Resnicow, and L. M. Klesges
Improving measurement methods for behavior change interventions: opportunities for innovation
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i121 - i124.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.