首页> 外文期刊>Psychological assessment >Examining classification criteria: A comparison of three cut score methods.
【24h】

Examining classification criteria: A comparison of three cut score methods.

机译:检查分类标准:三种切分方法的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

This study compared 3 different methods of creating cut scores for a screening instrument, T scores, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, and the Rasch rating scale method (RSM), for use with the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS) Teacher Rating Scale for Children and Adolescents (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007). Using the BESS norm data set, we compared the methods across 7 classification indices. Additional information about accuracy was used with a subset of children who had been given a prior diagnosis for selected disorders. The results showed that the methods were generally in concordance, with similarities identified across methods. RSM and ROC analysis methods performed similarly, with both methods identifying the same optimal cut-point. The method based on T scores appeared to be more conservative, identifying a lower cut score as optimal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).
机译:这项研究比较了3种不同的为筛查仪器创建切割分数的方法,T分数,接收者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析和Rasch评定量表方法(RSM),用于行为和情感筛查系统(BESS)老师儿童和青少年等级量表(Kamphaus&Reynolds,2007年)。使用BESS规范数据集,我们比较了7个分类指标的方法。有关准确性的其他信息用于先前对某些疾病进行了诊断的部分儿童。结果表明,这些方法总体上是一致的,并且在各个方法之间都具有相似性。 RSM和ROC分析方法的执行方式相似,两种方法都可以确定相同的最佳切割点。基于T分数的方法似乎更为保守,将较低的切割分数确定为最佳。 (PsycINFO数据库记录(c)2011 APA,保留所有权利)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号