Derivation of cut-off value for a 10 item opinion based ordinal survey questionnaire

Balaji Arumugam, Suganya E., Saranya Nagalingam


Background: Questionnaire is the most common tool for data collection in most of the study designs. In spite of the advantage of using a standardized questionnaire for generalising the study findings, the major disadvantage is that all the population is never the same and its similarity exists only with the presence of heterogeneity, hence, any universal cut-off value cannot be used for the diverse population. This makes it clear that determination of cut-off value for any content validated questionnaire to the specified study population is essential, in order to make the study tool more effective.

Methods: This study was done to determine the cut-off value of psychometric scale of selfie addiction, which was content validated. A detailed mathematical model was used to determine the cut off value. Item analysis was done. Discrimination index, weightage of each item and correction factor was calculated to determine the cut-off value.

Results: The total weighted score, total raw score and correction factor are 28012.62 and 31,046, 0.9 respectively. The total adjusted scale cut-off is 30.43 (rounded as 30). The cut-off value based on crude mid-value is 25 and the cut off value determined for the standardised population is 21.Study population with cut-off value of >30 are considered to be a selfie addict, and those who have obtained a total score ≤30 are considered to be normal (non-selfie addict).

Conclusions: Present study is one of its kind, in determining the cut-off value for a content validated psychometric scale without any gold standard. The above derived cut-off value of 30 for the psychometric scale of selfie addiction is valid for the specified population, as the Cronbach’s alpha, discrimination index and the correction factor is above 0.75.


Selfie addiction, Discrimination index, Cut-off value, Correction factor

Full Text:



David JR. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York; 2012.

Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. Content validity index in scale development. J Cent South Univ (Med Sci). 2012;37(2):152-5.

Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28:563-75.

Mussio SJ, Smith MK. Content validity: A procedural manual. International Personnel Association, Chicago; 1973.

Balaji A, Saranya N. Validation of Psychometric Scale on Selfie Addiction. Int J Contemp Med Re¬s. 2015;2(4):941-6.

IRA/NCTE Joint Task Force on Assessment. Standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; 1994.

Chestnut Hill, MA: National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, Boston College; 1990.

Ankur B. Methods for decision-making in survey questionnaires based on likert scale. J Asian Sci Res. 2013;3(1):35-8.

Ankur B, Kumaraswamy K, Biswadeep D, Kumar SG, Rohit KV, Sami ARA. A Tool for Decision-Making in Norm-Referenced Survey Questionnaires with Items of Ordinal Variables. Int J Collaborat Res Internal Med Pub Health.2014;6(3):52-63.

Wood DA. Test construction: Development and interpretation of achievement tests. Columbus CE. Merrill Books; 1960.

Sanju G, Rashmi S, Manish R. Item and test analysis to identify quality multiple choice questiona (MCQs) from an assessment of medical students of Ahmedambad, Gujarat. Indian J Comm Med. 2014;39(1):17-20.

Rourke O, Norm, Hatcher LA. Step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. North Carolina; 2013.

Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, Roy PM, Verschuren F, Ghuysen A, et al. Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Cutoff Levels to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism The ADJUST-PE Study. JAMA. 2014;311(11):1117-24.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.

Mohsen T, Reg D. Making sense of Cronbach’salpha. Int J Med Edu. 2011;2:53-5.