Matching Items (808)
Description
The purpose of this study was to examine the association between characteristics of the symptomatology change curve (i.e., initial symptomatology, rate of change, curvature) and final treatment outcome. The sample consisted of community clients (N = 492) seen by 204 student therapists at a training clinic. A multilevel approach to account for therapist effects was followed. Linear, quadratic, and cubic trajectories of anxiety and depression symptomatology, as assessed by the Shorter Psychotherapy and Counseling Evaluation (sPaCE; Halstead, Leach, & Rust, 2007), were estimated. The multilevel quadratic trajectory best fit the data and depicted a descending curve (partial “U”-shaped). The quadratic growth parameters (intercept, slope, quadratic) were then used as predictors of both symptom change and reliable improvement in general symptomatology (pre- to post-treatment), as assessed by the Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2; Lambert, Hansen, Umpress, Lunen, Okiishi et al., 1996). The quadratic growth parameters of depression and anxiety showed predictive power for both symptom change and reliable improvement in general symptomatology. Patterns for two different successful outcomes (1-change in general symptomatology and 2-reliable improvement) were identified. For symptom change, successful outcomes followed a pattern of low initial levels of depression and anxiety, high initial rates of change (slope), and high (flattening after initial drop) curvature, and the pattern applied to both within- and between-therapist levels. For reliable improvement at within-therapist level, successful outcomes followed a pattern of high initial rate of change (slope) and high curvature. For reliable improvement at between-therapist level, successful outcomes were associated with a pattern of low initial levels of depression and anxiety. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.
ContributorsJimenez Arista, Laura E (Author) / Tracey, Terence (Thesis advisor) / Kinnier, Richard (Committee member) / Bernstein, Bianca (Committee member) / Randall, Ashley K. (Committee member) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs; Reye, 2004) are a promising tool for modeling student proficiency under rich measurement scenarios (Reichenberg, in press). These scenarios often present assessment conditions far more complex than what is seen with more traditional assessments and require assessment arguments and psychometric models capable of integrating those complexities. Unfortunately, DBNs remain understudied and their psychometric properties relatively unknown. If the apparent strengths of DBNs are to be leveraged, then the body of literature surrounding their properties and use needs to be expanded upon. To this end, the current work aimed at exploring the properties of DBNs under a variety of realistic psychometric conditions. A two-phase Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted in order to evaluate parameter recovery for DBNs using maximum likelihood estimation with the Netica software package. Phase 1 included a limited number of conditions and was exploratory in nature while Phase 2 included a larger and more targeted complement of conditions. Manipulated factors included sample size, measurement quality, test length, the number of measurement occasions. Results suggested that measurement quality has the most prominent impact on estimation quality with more distinct performance categories yielding better estimation. While increasing sample size tended to improve estimation, there were a limited number of conditions under which greater samples size led to more estimation bias. An exploration of this phenomenon is included. From a practical perspective, parameter recovery appeared to be sufficient with samples as low as N = 400 as long as measurement quality was not poor and at least three items were present at each measurement occasion. Tests consisting of only a single item required exceptional measurement quality in order to adequately recover model parameters. The study was somewhat limited due to potentially software-specific issues as well as a non-comprehensive collection of experimental conditions. Further research should replicate and, potentially expand the current work using other software packages including exploring alternate estimation methods (e.g., Markov chain Monte Carlo).
ContributorsReichenberg, Raymond E (Author) / Levy, Roy (Thesis advisor) / Eggum-Wilkens, Natalie (Thesis advisor) / Iida, Masumi (Committee member) / DeLay, Dawn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Investigation of measurement invariance (MI) commonly assumes correct specification of dimensionality across multiple groups. Although research shows that violation of the dimensionality assumption can cause bias in model parameter estimation for single-group analyses, little research on this issue has been conducted for multiple-group analyses. This study explored the effects of mismatch in dimensionality between data and analysis models with multiple-group analyses at the population and sample levels. Datasets were generated using a bifactor model with different factor structures and were analyzed with bifactor and single-factor models to assess misspecification effects on assessments of MI and latent mean differences. As baseline models, the bifactor models fit data well and had minimal bias in latent mean estimation. However, the low convergence rates of fitting bifactor models to data with complex structures and small sample sizes caused concern. On the other hand, effects of fitting the misspecified single-factor models on the assessments of MI and latent means differed by the bifactor structures underlying data. For data following one general factor and one group factor affecting a small set of indicators, the effects of ignoring the group factor in analysis models on the tests of MI and latent mean differences were mild. In contrast, for data following one general factor and several group factors, oversimplifications of analysis models can lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding MI assessment and latent mean estimation.
ContributorsXu, Yuning (Author) / Green, Samuel (Thesis advisor) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / Thompson, Marilyn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
A simulation study was conducted to explore the robustness of general factor mean difference estimation in bifactor ordered-categorical data. In the No Differential Item Functioning (DIF) conditions, the data generation conditions varied were sample size, the number of categories per item, effect size of the general factor mean difference, and the size of specific factor loadings; in data analysis, misspecification conditions were introduced in which the generated bifactor data were fit using a unidimensional model, and/or ordered-categorical data were treated as continuous data. In the DIF conditions, the data generation conditions varied were sample size, the number of categories per item, effect size of latent mean difference for the general factor, the type of item parameters that had DIF, and the magnitude of DIF; the data analysis conditions varied in whether or not setting equality constraints on the noninvariant item parameters.
Results showed that falsely fitting bifactor data using unidimensional models or failing to account for DIF in item parameters resulted in estimation bias in the general factor mean difference, while treating ordinal data as continuous had little influence on the estimation bias as long as there was no severe model misspecification. The extent of estimation bias produced by misspecification of bifactor datasets with unidimensional models was mainly determined by the degree of unidimensionality (i.e., size of specific factor loadings) and the general factor mean difference size. When the DIF was present, the estimation accuracy of the general factor mean difference was completely robust to ignoring noninvariance in specific factor loadings while it was very sensitive to failing to account for DIF in threshold parameters. With respect to ignoring the DIF in general factor loadings, the estimation bias of the general factor mean difference was substantial when the DIF was -0.15, and it can be negligible for smaller sizes of DIF. Despite the impact of model misspecification on estimation accuracy, the power to detect the general factor mean difference was mainly influenced by the sample size and effect size. Serious Type I error rate inflation only occurred when the DIF was present in threshold parameters.
Results showed that falsely fitting bifactor data using unidimensional models or failing to account for DIF in item parameters resulted in estimation bias in the general factor mean difference, while treating ordinal data as continuous had little influence on the estimation bias as long as there was no severe model misspecification. The extent of estimation bias produced by misspecification of bifactor datasets with unidimensional models was mainly determined by the degree of unidimensionality (i.e., size of specific factor loadings) and the general factor mean difference size. When the DIF was present, the estimation accuracy of the general factor mean difference was completely robust to ignoring noninvariance in specific factor loadings while it was very sensitive to failing to account for DIF in threshold parameters. With respect to ignoring the DIF in general factor loadings, the estimation bias of the general factor mean difference was substantial when the DIF was -0.15, and it can be negligible for smaller sizes of DIF. Despite the impact of model misspecification on estimation accuracy, the power to detect the general factor mean difference was mainly influenced by the sample size and effect size. Serious Type I error rate inflation only occurred when the DIF was present in threshold parameters.
ContributorsLiu, Yixing (Author) / Thompson, Marilyn (Thesis advisor) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / O’Rourke, Holly (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
ContributorsHaydn, Joseph, 1732-1809 (Composer) / Miller, Donald G. (Arranger)
ContributorsHaydn, Joseph, 1732-1809 (Composer)
ContributorsHaydn, Joseph, 1732-1809 (Composer)
ContributorsHaydn, Joseph, 1732-1809 (Composer)
ContributorsHaydn, Joseph, 1732-1809 (Composer)
ContributorsHaydn, Joseph, 1732-1809 (Composer)