Item response theory analysis of the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale

ABSTRACT

The focus of these analyses was to examine the psychometric properties of the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale (LFDSS). The purpose of the screen was to evaluate the decisional abilities and vulnerability to exploitation of older adults. Adults aged 60 and over were interviewed by social, legal, financial, or health services professionals who underwent in-person training on the administration and scoring of the scale. Professionals provided a rating of the decision-making abilities of the older adult. The analytic sample included 213 individuals with an average age of 76.9 (SD = 10.1). The majority (57%) were female. Data were analyzed using item response theory (IRT) methodology. The results supported the unidimensionality of the item set. Several IRT models were tested. Ten ordinal and binary items evidenced a slightly higher reliability estimate (0.85) than other versions and better coverage in terms of the range of reliable measurement across the continuum of financial incapacity.

KEYWORDS:

• Competency screening
• financial abuse
• financial decision screening
• information
• item response theory
• reliability

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (P30 AG015281); Michigan Center for Urban African American Aging Research; American House Foundation; Retirement Research Foundation Michigan Alzheimer’s Center Core grant #P30AG053760; and Martha and Bob Sachs. The study was also supported by the National Institute of Justice (MU-CX-0001). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (P30 AG015281); Michigan Center for Urban African American Aging Research; American House Foundation; Retirement Research Foundation Michigan Alzheimer’s Center Core grant #P30AG053760; and Martha and Bob Sachs. The study was also supported by the National Institute of Justice (MU-CX-0001). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.