Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Most multidimensional patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures are lengthy to complete. Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) that selects the most informative items can potentially reduce respondent burden without sacrificing measurement accuracy. The commonly used maximum Fisher information item selection method has been reported to lead to highly unbalanced item bank usage and potentially imprecise trait estimation. This study employs the content-balancing strategy in a bifactor-modeled CAT item selection and examines its impact on measurement accuracy and item bank usage.
Item responses from a population-based SF-36 survey were first calibrated using the bifactor graded response model. Four post hoc CATs using items and responses from the SF-36 data set were then created. The content-balancing strategy was adopted in the item selection procedure of the bifactor-modeled CAT. The measurement accuracy and usage of items of the CAT were compared between the tests with and without the content-balancing strategy.
The results indicate that the CAT implemented with the content-balancing strategy offers a better overall measurement accuracy of both the general health status and the two health domains (physical and mental) of the SF-36.
The content-balancing strategy helps the CAT–PRO to balance the selection of items and achieve improved measurement accuracy. Its implementation in real-time CAT administration to measure multidimensional PRO traits merits further studies.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Chang, C-H., & Reeve, B. B. (2005). Item response theory and its applications to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement. Evaluation & the Health Professions,28(3), 264–282. CrossRef
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. CA: Sage Publications.
Chang, H.-H. (2004). Understanding computerized adaptive testing: From Robbins-Monro to Lord and beyond. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 117–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haley, S. M., Ni, P. S., Ludlow, L. H., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. A. (2006). Measurement precision and efficiency of multidimensional computer adaptive testing of physical functioning using the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,87, 1223–1229. PubMedCrossRef
Gibbons, R., & Hedeker, D. (1992). Full-information item bifactor analysis. Psychometrika,57(3), 423–436. CrossRef
Gibbons, R. D., Bock, R., Hedeker, D., Weiss, D. J., Segawa, E., Bhaumik, D. K., Kupfer, D. J., Frank, E., Grochocinski, V. J., & Stover, A. (2007). Full-information item bifactor analysis of graded response data. Applied Psychological Measurement,31(1), 4–19.
Haley, S. M., Ni, P., Dumas, H. M., Fragala-Pinkham, M. A., Hambleton, R. K., Montpetit, K., Bilodeau, N., Gorton, G. E., Watson, K., & Tucker, C. A. (2009). Measuring global physical health in children with cerebral palsy: Illustration of a multidimensional bi-factor model and computerized adaptive testing. Quality of Life Research,18, 359–370.
Immekus, J. C., Gibbons, R. D., & Rush, A. J. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes measurement and computerized adaptive testing: An application of post-hoc simulation to a diagnostic screening instrument. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC conference on computerized adaptive testing.
Weiss, D. J., & Gibbons, R. D. (2007). Computerized adaptive testing with the bifactor model. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC conference on computerized adaptive testing.
Cheng, Y., Chang, H-H., Douglas, J., & Guo, F. (2009). Constraint-weighted a-stratification for computerized adaptive testing with nonstatistical constraints. Educational and Psychological Measurement,69(1), 35–49. CrossRef
Leung, C-K., Chang, H.-H., & Hau, K.-T. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing: A comparison of three content balancing methods. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2( 5). Available from http://www.jtla.org.
Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education,2, 359–375. CrossRef
Chen, S., Ankenmann, R. D., & Spray, J. A. (1999, April). Exploring the relationship between item exposure rate and test overlap rate in computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
Leung, C-K., Chang, H.-H., & Hau, K.-T. (2000, April). Content- balancing in stratified computerized adaptive testing designs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 Physical and mental summary scale: A user’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ware, J. E. (2002). User’s manual for the SF-12v2 health survey (with a supplement documenting SF-12 health survey). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc.
Chang, H., & Ying, Z. (1999). A-stratified multistage computer adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement,23(3), 211–222. CrossRef
Chang, H., Qian, J., & Ying, Z. (2001). A-stratified multistage computer adaptive testing with b blocking. Applied Psychological Measurement,25(4), 333–341. CrossRef
Stewart, A. L., Sherbourne, C. D., Hays, R. D., Wells, K. B., Nelson, E. C., Kamberg, C., Rogers, W. H., Berry, S. H., Ware, J. E. (1992). Summary and discussion of MOS measures. In A. L. Stewart & J. E. Ware (Eds.), Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach (pp. 345–371). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Content-balancing strategy in bifactor computerized adaptive patient-reported outcome measurement
- Springer Netherlands