A Comparison of Magical Ideation in Nonclinical Adolescent and Adult Groups : An Item Response Theory Based Differential Item Functioning Analysis

Jung Lee; Sumi Park; Yeni Kim; Yong Sik Kim; Hee-Yeon Jung

doi:10.16946/kjsr.2015.18.1.28

Journal List > Korean J Schizophr Res > v.18(1) > 1057812

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Park, Kim, Kim, and Jung: A Comparison of Magical Ideation in Nonclinical Adolescent and Adult Groups : An Item Response Theory Based Differential Item Functioning Analysis

Original Article

Korean J Schizophr Res 2015;18(1):28-34.

Published online: 17 January 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16946/kjsr.2015.18.1.28

A Comparison of Magical Ideation in Nonclinical Adolescent and Adult Groups : An Item Response Theory Based Differential Item Functioning Analysis

Jung Lee, MD^1,⁵, Sumi Park, MA², Yeni Kim, MD, PhD³, Yong Sik Kim, MD, PhD⁴, Hee-Yeon Jung, MD, PhD^2,⁵

¹Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Psychiatry, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Adolescent Psychiatry, National Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Seoul National Hospital, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea

⁵Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address for correspondence: Hee-Yeon Jung, Department of Psychiatry, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, 20 Boramaero 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 156-707, Korea Tel: 02-870-2461, Fax: 02-870-3866 E-mail: hyjung@snu.ac.kr

Revised 20 March 20158 April 2015 Accepted 9 April 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

We examined magical ideation in adolescent and adult group by Magical Ideation Scale (MIS). We also explored how adolescents and adults respond differently to each items of MIS.

Methods

310 nonclinical adults and 310 Year 10 students participated in this study, and completed MIS and Symptom Checklist 90-revision (SCL-90-R). Total scores of MIS were compared between adults and adolescents. The item characteristics of MIS were evaluated by item response theory (IRT). Differential item functioning (DIF) was detected using the parameters of IRT.

Results

Total score of MIS was higher in adolescents than in adults, but there was no statistical significance. Item 5, 10, 13, and 16 showed significant difference on item difficulty parameters and were identified as DIF. Among DIF items, item 5 was more difficult for adolescents than adults. Item 10, 13, and 16 were more difficult for adults than adolescents. The modified MIS score excluding 4 DIF items was significantly higher in adolescents than adults.

Conclusion

The influence of age on response to DIF items should be considered when comparing MIS scores between adolescents and adults.

Keywords: Magical ideation scale, Age, Item response theory, Differential item functioning, Adolescent, Adult

REFERENCES

1). Johns LC, van Os J. The continuity of psychotic experiences in the general population. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001; 21:1125–1141.

2). Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Miller EN. Reliabilities and intercorrelations of eight measures of proneness to psychosis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1982; 50:187–195.

3). Eckblad M, Chapman LJ. Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983; 51:215–225.

4). Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Kwapil TR, Eckblad M, Zinser MC. Putatively psychosis-prone subjects 10 years later. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994; 103:171–183.

5). Kwapil TR, Miller MB, Zinser MC, Chapman J, Chapman LJ. Magical ideation and social anhedonia as predictors of psychosis proneness: A partial replication. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997; 106:491–495.

6). Yang IH. A psychometric study of the psychosis proneness scale [dis-sertation]. Seoul: Graduate School of Hanyang Univ.;1996.

7). Jung HY, Chang JS, Yi JS, Hwang S, Shin HK, Kim JH, et al. Measuring psychosis proneness in a nonclinical korean population: Is the peters et al delusions inventory useful for assessing high-risk individuals? Compr Psychiatry. 2008; 49:202–210.

8). Kim Y, Chang JS, Hwang S, Yi JS, Cho IH, Jung HY. Psychometric properties of peters et al. Delusions inventory-21 in adolescence. Psychiatry Res. 2013; 207:189–194.

9). Claridge G, McCreery C, Mason O, Bentall R, Boyle G, Slade P, et al. The factor structure of “schizotypal' traits: A large replication study. Br J Clin Psychol. 1996; 35(Pt 1):103–115.

10). Peters ER, Joseph SA, Garety PA. Measurement of delusional ideation in the normal population: Introducing the pdi (peters et al. Delusions inventory). Schizophr Bull. 1999; 25:553–576.

11). Venables P, Bailes K. The structure of schizotypy, its relation to sub-diagnoses of schizophrenia and to sex and age. Br J Clin Psychol. 1994; 33:277–294.

12). Verdoux H, Van Os J, Maurice-Tison S, Gay B, Salamon R, Bourgeois M. Is early adulthood a critical developmental stage for psychosis proneness? A survey of delusional ideation in normal subjects. Schizophr Res. 1998; 29:247–254.

13). Eckblad M, Chapman LJ. Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983; 51:215.

14). Yang I, Choi M. Mmpi response study on psychology prone group. J Korean Educ Psychol. 1997; 11:255–289.

15). Derogatis LR. Scl-90: Administration, scoring and procedures manual-i for the r evised version and other instruments of the psychopathology rating scale series. Baltimore: John Hopkins University;1977.

16). Kim J, Kim K. The standardization study of symptom checklist-90-revision in korea iii. Ment Health Res. 1984; 2:278–311.

17). Hambleton RK. Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage publications. 1991.

18). Holland PW, Thayer D. Test validity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.;1988.

19). Baker FB. The basics of item response theory. Portsmouth (NH): Heinemann;1985.

20). Scheuneman JD. A theoretical framework for the exploration of causes and effects of bias in testing. Educational Psychologist. 1984; 19:219–225.

21). Vollema MG, van den Bosch RJ. The multidimensionality of schizotypy. Schizophr Bull. 1995; 21:19–31.

22). Casey BJ, Getz S, Galvan A. The adolescent brain. Dev Rev. 2008; 28:62–77.

23). Spear LP. The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000; 24:417–463.

24). Lewis DA. Development of the prefrontal cortex during adolescence: Insights into vulnerable neural circuits in schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1997; 16:385–398.

25). Walker E, Bollini AM. Pubertal neurodevelopment and the emergence of psychotic symptoms. Schizophr Res. 2002; 54:17–23.

26). Harrop C, Trower P. Why does schizophrenia develop at late adolescence? Clin Psychol Rev. 2001; 21:241–265.

27). Fonseca-Pedrero E, Lemos-Giraldez S, Muniz J, Garcia-Cueto E, Campil-lo-Alvarez A. Schizotypy in adolescence: The role of gender and age. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008; 196:161–165.

Fig. 1.

TThe item difficulty of each items on MIS. ∗ : p＜0.001. MIS : Magical Ideation Scale.

Table 1.

Comparison of the MIS and SCL-90-R scores for the adults and the adolescents group

	Adults (n=310)	Adolescents (n=310)	Sig.
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Sig.
Age (years)	32.07 (9.58)	15.76 (0.49)
Education (years)	14.14 (2.23)	10 (0.00)
MIS	4.39 (3.38)	4.82 (3.73)	0.194
SCL-90-R
Total	401.05 (72.27)	395.93 (66.79)	0.232
SOM	44.21 (8.66)	45.37 (8.52)	0.004∗
O-C	44.31 (9.78)	43.20 (10.09)	0.096
I-S	45.77 (10.00)	43.38 (9.90)	0.001∗
DEP	44.63 (10.24)	43.15 (9.06)	0.025∗
ANX	43.56 (8.81)	43.06 (8.26)	0.221
HOS	46.24 (9.89)	45.83 (9.69)	0.063
PHOB	44.90 (7.38)	44.24 (5.93)	0.699
PAR	43.63 (8.85)	44.01 (10.46)	0.001∗
PSY	43.80 (8.10)	43.68 (8.56)	0.133

^∗ : p＜0.05. MIS : Magical Ideation Scale, SCL-90-R : Symptom Check List-90-R, SOM : Somatization, O-C : Obsessive-Compulsivitiy, I-S : interpersonal sensitivity, DEP : Depression, ANX : Anxiety, HOS : Hostility, PHOB : Phobic anxiety, PAR : Paranoid ideation, PSY : Psychoticism, SD : Standard Deviation

Table 2.

The correlations between the MIS and SCL-90-R

Groups	r	SCL-90-R
Groups	r	Total	SOM	O-C	I-S	DEP	ANX	HOS	PHO	PARA	PSY
Total (n=620)	MIS	0.49∗	0.36∗	0.44∗	0.38∗	0.42∗	0.47∗	0.42∗	0.29∗	0.43∗	0.43∗
Adults (n=310)	MIS	0.45∗	0.36∗	0.39∗	0.36∗	0.39∗	0.43∗	0.41∗	0.27∗	0.40∗	0.44∗
Adolescents (n=310)	MIS	0.53∗	0.36∗	0.49∗	0.41∗	0.45∗	0.52∗	0.43∗	0.35∗	0.48∗	0.44∗

^∗ : p＜0.001. MIS : Magical Ideation Scale, SCL-90-R : Symptom Check List-90-R, SOM : Somatization, O-C : Obsessive-Compulsivitiy, I-S : interpersonal sensitivity, DEP : Depression, ANX : Anxiety, HOS : Hostility, PHOB : Phobic anxiety, PAR : Paranoid ideation, PSY : Psychoticism, SD : Standard Deviation

Table 3.

The difficulty and DIF statistics of each item on the MIS

MIS items	Item difficulty		t.	DIF MH χ²
MIS items	Adults	Adolescents	t.	DIF MH χ²
5. Hand motions of strangers influence me	1.67	0.38	3.87∗	10.76∗
3. Something new in record sounds	1.51	0.84	1.93	2.52
6. Broadcasters know I am listening	1.36	0.80	1.68	1.68
11. People are part of an experiment	1.36	1.19	0.49	0.00
22. People on other planets influence Earth	0.70	0.22	1.74	1.73
2. Unusual experience and reincarnation	-0.01	-0.42	1.76	2.88
1. Evil presence	-0.13	-0.49	1.59	2.02
19. Learn mind reading	-0.24	-0.46	1.02	1.11
15. Powers of special numbers	-0.76	-1.31	2.77	9.20
14. Good luck charms	-1.43	-1.81	2.02	5.42
24. Dead influence the living	-1.63	-1.74	0.61	0.04
20. My thoughts belong to others	-1.80	-2.15	1.81	3.38
21. Government conceals flying saucers	-0.76	-0.76	0.00	0.00
16. Little rituals against negative influences	-1.93	-1.16	-4.01∗	14.47∗
17. Cause something by thinking	-1.57	-1.40	-0.90	0.73
18. Mind read by strangers	-0.18	-0.04	-0.62	0.13
13. Replaced by look-alikes	-0.56	0.56	-4.63∗	21.41∗
10. Lectures are meant for me	-0.01	0.93	-3.50∗	10.99∗
12. Things seem displaced	0.27	0.98	-2.50	7.11
4. Horoscopes are right too often	0.89	1.03	-0.45	0.00
9. Feeling of gaining or losing energy	0.74	1.08	-1.09	0.97
23. Arrangements of things have messages	1.10	1.36	-0.75	0.38
8. Fear of stepping on cracks	0.45	1.36	-2.94	6.92
7. Feelings of not being human	1.36	1.64	-0.72	0.57

^∗ : p＜0.001. MIS : Magical Ideation Scale, DIF : Differential Item Function, MH χ

² : Mantel-Haenszel chi-square

TOOLS

Similar articles