DETERS, LAUREN BF, Ph.D. Analysis of the Schizotypal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DETERS, LAUREN B. F., Ph.D. Analysis of the Schizotypal Ambivalence Scale. (2017) Directed by Dr. John Willse, 108 pp. The purpose of this study was threefold: a) to provide a thorough modern measurement example in a field where it is more limited in use, b) to investigate the psychometric properties of the Schizotypal Ambivalence Scale (SAS) through IRT measurement models, and c) to use the evaluation of the psychometric properties of the SAS to identify evidence for adherence to the relevant guidelines outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (hereafter Standards; AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). Together, these goals were to contribute to the argument that the SAS is a robust measure of the ambivalence construct. An archived sample of over 7,000 undergraduate students was used to conduct all analyses. Comparison of eigenvalue ratios indicated that the SAS data could be interpreted as essential unidimensional; however, results from the DIMTEST procedure (Stout, 2006) suggested a departure from unidimensionality. Results from the analysis provided adequate evidence for Standard 1.13 (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). The data were modeled via 1PL, 2PL, and 3PL models, and the 2PL model best fit the data. Examination of item-level statistics indicated that items 4, 8, 10, and 15 were endorsed more frequently than other items, and that items 2, 3, 9, 14, and 19 were the most discriminating. Items 7, 15, and 18 were flagged for possible misfit. Results from the analysis of local independence revealed that many item pairs, particularly items 10 through 16, may have violated the assumption of local independence. Furthermore, results from DIMTEST (Stout, 2006) were significant, and the partitioning of items indicated that items 12, 13, 14, and 16 were dimensionally similar. Analysis of the item-level characteristics provided evidence for Standard 4.10 (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). Analysis of information provided by the SAS at the item level revealed that items 2, 3, 9, 14, and 19 provided the most information at the higher end of the theta (θ) scale. Analysis of information at the scale level indicated that the reliability was α = .84, and that the highest point on the TIF occurred at θ = 0.8. The TIF and Cronbach’s α provided evidence for Standards 2.0 and 2.3, and documentation of evidence for Standard 7.12 (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). Analysis of DIF revealed that only item 4 exhibited moderate DIF. In general, these results indicated that the SAS can be used across populations without concerns of items performing differently across subgroups. These results provided evidence for Standard 4.10, Standard 3.0, and Standard 3.1 (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). ANALYSIS OF THE SCHIZOTYPAL AMBIVALENCE SCALE by Lauren B. F. Deters A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Greensboro 2017 Approved by Committee Chair For Chase. ii APPROVAL PAGE This dissertation written by LAUREN B. F. DETERS has been approved by the following committee of the Faculty of The Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Committee Chair Committee Members Date of Acceptance by Committee Date of Final Oral Examination iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Over the past several years, I have received support and encouragement from my department and external advisors. I would first like to thank my chair, Dr. John Willse, for assisting me from moving beyond my original concept to a cohesive study, and for his patience with helping me move forward as I managed my career and my dissertation. I would also like to thank my committee, composed of Dr. Tom Kwapil, Dr. Bob Henson, and Dr. Devdass Sunnassee, for their understanding, critical feedback, and positivity throughout this process. I would also like to thank my department for teaching me the lesson of communicating to a variety of stakeholders, a lesson that has served me well in both my career and my personal life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................................10 III. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................43 IV. RESULTS ............................................................................................................54 V. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................70 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................83 APPENDIX A. SCHIZOTYPAL AMBIVALENCE SCALE ...........................................95 APPENDIX B. IRB EXEMPT STATUS ..........................................................................97 APPENDIX C. ITEM CHARACTERISTIC CURVES ....................................................98 APPENDIX D. ITEM FIT STATISTICS ........................................................................103 APPENDIX E. ITEM INFORMATION FUNCTIONS ..................................................104 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Analysis and Evidence Matrix ............................................................................ 46 Table 2. SAS PCA Eigenvalues ........................................................................................ 54 Table 3. Fit Statistics for the 1PL, 2PL, and 3PL Models ................................................ 56 Table 4. Item Difficulty and Discrimination ..................................................................... 58 Table 5. Items Flagged for Possible Misfit ....................................................................... 59 Table 6. JSI Indices ........................................................................................................... 61 Table 7. Information at Various θ Points .......................................................................... 66 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Item Fit Statistics ............................................................................................... 59 Figure 2. Item Information Function for Item 2 ............................................................... 63 Figure 3. Item Information Function for Item 3 ............................................................... 63 Figure 4. Item Information Function for Item 9 ............................................................... 63 Figure 5. Item Information Function for Item 14 ............................................................. 64 Figure 6. Item Information Function for Item 19 ............................................................. 64 Figure 7. Test Information Function ................................................................................. 67 Figure 8. Standard Error of Measurement ........................................................................ 67 Figure 9. Mantel-Haenszel χ2 Statistics ............................................................................ 68 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Schizotypy represents the latent personality traits within people at-risk for developing schizophrenia (Meehl, 1962). The term “ambivalence,” one of the latent traits found within schizotypy and schizophrenia, was originally coined by Bleuler (1911, 1950). Bleuler defined it as the simultaneous experience of both positive and negative emotions and the inability to integrate these emotions. He viewed ambivalence as a manifestation of thought disorder and he also considered it to be one of the core components of schizophrenia. Unlike accessory symptoms, he considered ambivalence to be a symptom everyone with schizophrenia experiences. Meehl (1962) initially proposed that ambivalence was a core symptom in schizotypy; however, he later amended this statement and said that ambivalence increased the likelihood of schizophrenia (Meehl, 1989). Despite its prominence in Bleuler’s (1911, 1950) historical formulation of schizophrenia, as well as the emphasis Meehl (1989) placed on its role as a risk factor for developing schizophrenia, the concept of ambivalence has received relatively little attention in the mainstream psychopathology literature; specifically, the term did not appear in the DSM-IV-R under the entry for schizophrenia (Kuhn & Cahn, 2004), and does not appear in the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) under the entry for schizophrenia. Additionally, little work has been done to uncover the ambivalence construct as defined within schizotypy and schizophrenia. 1 However, one measure of ambivalence has been attempted. Raulin (1984) developed the Intense Ambivalence Scale (IAS) with the purpose of measuring the ambivalence construct as defined under schizotypy. However, after using the scale in studies, he later revised the scale to include fewer items, and this revised scale is now known as the Schizotypal Ambivalence Scale (SAS; Raulin, 1986). The SAS is intended to measure the ambivalence construct defined under schizotypy and schizophrenia. Though the SAS shows promise, the scale has not been through rigorous psychometric analysis. And, though a great