Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement Issues in the Application of Screening Tools for PTSD

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Guide to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

  • 381 Accesses

Abstract

Psychometrics is a term within the statistical literature that encompasses the development and evaluation of psychological tests and measures, an area of increasing importance within applied psychology specifically and behavioral sciences. Confusion continues to exist regarding the fundamental tenets of psychometric evaluation and application of the appropriate statistical tests and procedures. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main psychometric elements which need to be considered in both the development and evaluation of an instrument or tool used within the context of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The psychometric profile of a tool should also be considered in established tools used in screening PTSD. A “standard” for the application and reporting of psychometric data and approaches is emphasized, the goal of which is to ensure that the key psychometric parameters are considered in relation to the selection and use of PTSD screening tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

EFA:

Exploratory factor analysis

ML:

Maximum likelihoods

PAF:

Principal axis factor analysis

PCA:

Principal components analysis

RMSEA:

Root mean squared error of approximation

SEM:

Structural equation modeling

TLI:

Tucker-Lewis index

WLSMV:

Weighted least squares means and variance adjusted

References

  • American Educational Research Association, et al. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. London: The Guilford Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB. Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, Tatham R. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Educational; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline P. A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance CE, Butts MM, Michels LC. The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: what did they really say? Org Res Methods. 2006;9(2):202–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin CR, Savage-McGlynn E. A ‘good practice’ guide for the reporting of design and analysis for psychometric evaluation. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2013;31(5):449–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger JH, Lind J. Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Annual spring meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Society and Health, Buckinghamshire New University, Room 2.11, Uxbridge Campus, 106 Oxford Road, UB8 1NA, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK

    Colin R. Martin

  2. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, OX3 7LF, Headington, Oxford, UK

    Emily Savage-McGlynn

  3. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University (Sighthill Campus), 9 Sighthill Court, EH11 4BN, Midlothian, UK

    Caroline J. Hollins Martin

Authors
  1. Colin R. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Savage-McGlynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caroline J. Hollins Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin R. Martin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Buckinghamshire New University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom

    Colin R. Martin

  2. Kings College, London, United Kingdom

    Victor R. Preedy

  3. University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom

    Vinood B. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Martin, C.R., Savage-McGlynn, E., Hollins Martin, C.J. (2015). Measurement Issues in the Application of Screening Tools for PTSD. In: Martin, C., Preedy, V., Patel, V. (eds) Comprehensive Guide to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08613-2_48-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08613-2_48-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08613-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation