What are the minimal sample size requirements for Mokken scaling? An empirical example with the Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale

References

• Crutzen, R., & Peters, G.-J. Y. (2017). Scale quality: Alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychology Review, 11, 242–247. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2015.1124240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deary, I. J., Watson, R., Booth, T., & Gale, C. R. (2013). Does cognitive ability influence responses to the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale? Psychological Assessment, 25, 313–318. doi: 10.1037/a0030834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dima, A. L. (2018). X-raying concepts: A 6-step protocol for scale validation in applied health research. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, (in press).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doherty, S., Dolan, E., Flynn, J., O’Carroll, R. E., & Doyle, F. (2017). Circumventing the “ick” factor: A randomized trial of the effects of omitting affective attitudes questions to increase intention to become an organ donor. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 821. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 337–352. doi: 10.1177/014662169501900404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogarty, K. Y., Hines, C. V., Kromrey, J. D., Ferron, J. M., & Mumford, K. R. (2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 202–226. doi: 10.1177/0013164404267287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, M., Benyamini, Y., & Karademas, E. C. (2016). Measurement issues in health psychology. In Y. Benyamini, M. Johnston, & E. C. Karademas (Eds.), Assessment in health psychology (pp. 320–334). Gottingen: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Kuijpers, R. E., van der Ark, L. A., & Croon, M. A. (2013). Standard errors and confidence intervals for scalability coefficients in Mokken scaling analysis using marginal models. Sociological Methodology, 43, 42–69. doi: 10.1177/0081175013481958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligtvoet, R., van der Ark, L. A., te Marvelde, J. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2010). Investigating an invariant item ordering for polytomously scored items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 578–595. doi: 10.1177/0013164409355697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, R. R., & Baneke, J. J. (2001). Analysing psychopathology items: A case for non-parametric item response theory modelling. Psychological Methods, 9, 351–368.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, R. R., & Egberink, I. J. L. (2012). Investigating invariant item ordering in personality and clinical scales: Some empirical findings and a discussion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 589–607. doi: 10.1177/0013164411429344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer, R. R., Sijtsma, K., & Smid, N. G. (1990). Theoretical and empirical comparison of the Mokken and the Rasch approach to IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 283–298. doi: 10.1177/014662169001400306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. Den Haag: Mouton/De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Mokken, R. J. (1997). Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 351–367). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mokken, R. J., & Lewis, C. (1982). A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 417–430. doi: 10.1177/014662168200600404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I. W., Sijtsma, K., & Boer, P. (2000). MSP5 for windows: A program forMokken scale analysis for polytomous items. Groningen: iec ProGAMMA.
   Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K., Debets, P., & Molenaar, I. W. (1990). Mokken scaling analysis for polytomous items: Theory, a computer programme and an empirical application. Quality and Quantity, 24, 173–188. doi: 10.1007/BF00209550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stochl, P., Jones, P. B., & Croudace, T. J. (2012). Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: A non-parametric IRT method in empirical research for applied researchers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 275. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/12/74 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-74
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stouffer, S. A., Guttman, L., Suchman, E. A., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Star, S. A., & Clausen, J. A. (1950). Measurement and prediction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Straat, J. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2014). Minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 809–822. doi: 10.1177/0013164414529793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., … Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63. Retrieved from http://www.hqlo.com/content/5/1/63 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Abswoude, A. A. H., Vermunt, J. K., Hemker, B. T., & van der Ark, L. A. (2004). Mokken scaling analysis using hierarchical clustering procedures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 332–354. doi: 10.1177/0146621604265510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Alphen, A., Halfens, R., Hasman, A., & Imbos, T. (1994). Likert or Rasch? Nothing is more applicable than good theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 196–201. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20010196.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Ark, L. A. (2007). Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, R., Thompson, D. R., & Wang, W. (2014). Violations of local stochastic independence exaggerate scalability in Mokken scaling analysis of the Chinese mandarin SF-36. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 417. Retrieved from http://www.hqlo.com/content/12/1/149 doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0149-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, R., van der Ark, L. A., Lin, L.-C., Fieo, R., Deary, I. J., & Meijer, R. R. (2012). Item response theory: How Mokken scaling can be used in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 2736–2746. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03893.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, M. S., Bennett, C. L., Davis, T. C., Marin, E., & Arnold, C. (2005). A qualitative study of literacy and patient response to HIV medication adherence questionnaires. Journal of Health Communication, 10(6), 509–517. doi: 10.1080/10810730500228631
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar