Modern Psychometric Analysis of the Muscle Strengthening Activity Scale (MSAS) Using Item Response Theory

Peter D. Hart^1,

¹Health Promotion Research, Havre, MT 59501

Cite this paper:
Peter D. Hart. Modern Psychometric Analysis of the Muscle Strengthening Activity Scale (MSAS) Using Item Response Theory. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. 2019; 7(1):23-33. doi: 10.12691/rpbs-7-1-4

Abstract

Background: With the growing need to promote muscle strengthening activity (MSA) for improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) comes the growing need for proper measurement of MSA behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine test and item functioning of the MSA scale (MSAS) using item response theory (IRT). Methods: The current research fit data from a sample of N = 400 respondents to two different graded response models (GRMs), a three-item muscular strength scale and a three-item muscular endurance scale. For each GRM, model-data fit was examined and IRT assumptions assessed. Results: An unconstrained GRM was found to fit the data better than the constrained model (Δ G²_Strength = 10.3, p = .006, RMSEA = .043 & Δ G²_Endurance = 7.0, p = .031, RMSEA = .021). GRM boundary location parameters covered the latent trait scale well for both strength (bs: -4.26 to 2.58) and endurance (bs: -3.86 to 1.79) scales with each item showing adequate fit to the data (all RMSEAs < .05). Test information was approximately evenly distributed around a theta of zero with summed information from theta ranges ±4 of 92.8 (strength) and 93.5% (endurance). Only 2.3 and 1.5% of persons misfit the strength and endurance GRMs, respectively. Conclusion: The MSAS has shown to be a valid tool for measuring MSA behavior in adults using modern psychometric theory.

Keywords:
Muscle strengthening activity (MSA) Item response theory (IRT) Graded response model (GRM) test information

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, George SM, Olson RD. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018 Nov 20; 320(19): 2020-8.
[2]	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
[3]	Hart PD, Buck DJ. The effect of resistance training on health-related quality of life in older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Health promotion perspectives. 2019; 9(1): 1.
[4]	Hart PD. Development and item analysis of a multidimensional scale to measure muscle strengthening behavior: The Muscle Strengthening Activity Scale (MSAS). EAS Journal of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences. 2019. 1(2): 29-35.
[5]	Hart PD. Construct validity evidence for the Muscle Strengthening Activity Scale (MSAS). American Journal of Public Health Research. 2019. 7(5): 189-193.
[6]	Haynes SN, Smith GT, Hunsley JD. Scientific foundations of clinical assessment. Routledge; 2018 Nov 8.
[7]	DeVellis RF. Classical test theory. Medical care. 2006 Nov 1: S50-9.
[8]	Magno C. Demonstrating the difference between classical test theory and item response theory using derived test data. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment. 2009 May 26; 1(1): 1-1.
[9]	Edwards MC. An introduction to item response theory using the need for cognition scale. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2009 Jul; 3(4): 507-29.
[10]	van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK, editors. Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Mar 9.
[11]	Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage; 1991.
[12]	Reise SP. Item Response Theory. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. 2014 Dec 29: 1-0.
[13]	Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978 Dec 1; 43(4): 561-73.
[14]	Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982 Jun 1; 47(2): 149-74.
[15]	Muraki E. Fitting a polytomous item response model to Likert-type data. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1990 Mar; 14(1): 59-71.
[16]	Muraki E. A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. ETS Research Report Series. 1992 Jun; 1992(1): i-30.
[17]	Bock RD. The nominal categories model. InHandbook of modern item response theory 1997 (pp. 33-49). Springer, New York, NY.
[18]	Samejima F. Graded response models. In Handbook of item response theory, volume one 2016 Oct 14 (pp. 123-136). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[19]	Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika monograph supplement. 1969 Dec.
[20]	Ma Z, Wu M. The Psychometric Properties of the Chinese eHealth Literacy Scale (C-eHEALS) in a Chinese Rural Population: Cross-Sectional Validation Study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2019; 21(10): e15720.
[21]	Ostini R, Nering ML. Polytomous item response theory models. Sage; 2006.
[22]	De Ayala RJ. The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Publications; 2013 Oct 15.
[23]	Johnson MS. Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item response models in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2007 Feb 22; 20(10): 1-24.
[24]	Chen WH, Thissen D. Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1997 Sep; 22(3): 265-89.
[25]	Rea LM, Parker RA. Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons; 2014 Sep 9.
[26]	Nguyen TH, Han HR, Kim MT, Chan KS. An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2014 Mar 1; 7(1): 23-35.
[27]	Courtney M, Gordon R. Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R-Menu v2 0 to Make More Judicious Estimations. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2013; 18(1): 8.
[28]	Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika. 1976 Sep 1; 41(3): 321-7.
[29]	Maydeu-Olivares A, Cai L, Hernández A. Comparing the fit of item response theory and factor analysis models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2011 Jun 30; 18(3): 333-56.
[30]	Reise SP. A comparison of item-and person-fit methods of assessing model-data fit in IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1990 Jun; 14(2): 127-37.
[31]	Rizopoulos D. Latent trait models under IRT. 2018 Apr. R package version 1. 1-1.
[32]	Rizopoulos D. ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of statistical software. 2006 Nov 17; 17(5): 1-25.
[33]	Chalmers P. Multidimensional Item Response Theory. 2019 Sep. R package version 1. 31.
[34]	Chalmers RP. mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012 May 24; 48(6): 1-29.
[35]	Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge; 3rd edition; 2015 June 16.
[36]	Avian A, Messerer B, Frey A, Meissner W, Weinberg A, Ravekes W, Berghold A. Scaling properties of pain intensity ratings in paediatric populations using the Faces Pain Scale-revised: Secondary analyses of published data based on the item response theory. International journal of nursing studies. 2018 Nov 1; 87: 49-59.