Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 1/2010

01-02-2010

Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms

Auteurs: Seung W. Choi, Steven P. Reise, Paul A. Pilkonis, Ron D. Hays, David Cella

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2010

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Short-form patient-reported outcome measures are popular because they minimize patient burden. We assessed the efficiency of static short forms and computer adaptive testing (CAT) using data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project.

Methods

We evaluated the 28-item PROMIS depressive symptoms bank. We used post hoc simulations based on the PROMIS calibration sample to compare several short-form selection strategies and the PROMIS CAT to the total item bank score.

Results

Compared with full-bank scores, all short forms and CAT produced highly correlated scores, but CAT outperformed each static short form in almost all criteria. However, short-form selection strategies performed only marginally worse than CAT. The performance gap observed in static forms was reduced by using a two-stage branching test format.

Conclusions

Using several polytomous items in a calibrated unidimensional bank to measure depressive symptoms yielded a CAT that provided marginally superior efficiency compared to static short forms. The efficiency of a two-stage semi-adaptive testing strategy was so close to CAT that it warrants further consideration and study.
vorige artikel Health and role functioning: the use of focus groups in the development of an item bank
volgende artikel The analysis of longitudinal quality of life measures with informative drop-out: a pattern mixture approach
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Bjorner, J. B., Chang, C. H., Thissen, D., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 95–108.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Thissen, D., Reeve, B. B., Bjorner, J. B., & Chang, C. H. (2007). Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 109–119.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Belov, D. I., & Armstrong, R. D. (2008). A Monte Carlo approach to the design, assembly, and evaluation of multistage adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32(2), 119–137.CrossRef
5.
Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (in preparation). The development of scales for emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Depression, Anxiety, and Anger.
6.
Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O., Bjorner, J., Klapp, B., & Rose, M. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2277–2291.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gardner, W., Shear, K., Kelleher, K., Pajer, K., Mammen, O., Buysse, D., et al. (2004). Computerized adaptive measurement of depression: A simulation study. BMC Psychiatry, 4(1), 13.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gibbons, R. D., Weiss, D. J., Kupfer, D. J., Frank, E., Fagiolini, A., Grochocinski, V. J., et al. (2008). Using computerized adaptive testing to reduce the burden of mental health assessment. Psychiatric Services, 59(4), 361–368.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, 17.
10.
Thissen, D., Chen, W.-H., & Bock, R. D. (2003). Multilog (version 7) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
11.
Kang, T., & Chen, T. (2008). Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for polytomous IRT models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 391–406.CrossRef
12.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298.CrossRef
13.
Bjorner, J. B., Smith, K. J., Orlando, M., Stone, C., Thissen, D., & Sun, X. (2006). IRTFIT: A macro for item fit and local dependence tests under IRT models. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, Inc.
14.
Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W. T., & Hays, R. D. (in press). Representativeness of the PROMIS Internet Panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
15.
Muthen, L. K. & Muthen, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide.
16.
Choi, S. W. (2009). Firestar: Computerized adaptive testing simulation program for polytomous IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(8), 644–645.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 473–492.CrossRef
19.
Chang, H.-H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3), 213–229.CrossRef
20.
Lima Passos, V., Berger, M. P. F., & Tan, F. E. (2007). Test design optimization in CAT early stage with the nominal response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 213–232.CrossRef
21.
van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J. (2000). Item selection and ability estimator in adaptive testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 1–25). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
22.
Veerkamp, W. J. J., & Berger, M. P. F. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(2), 203–226.
23.
Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 431–444.CrossRef
24.
Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J. (2009). Comparison of CAT item selection criteria for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(6), 419–440.CrossRefPubMed
25.
van der Linden, W. (1998). Optimal assembly of psychological and education tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(3), 195–211.CrossRef
26.
Reise, S. P., & Henson, J. M. (2000). Computerization and adaptive administration of the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 7(4), 347–364.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hol, A. M., Vorst, H. C. M., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2007). Computerized adaptive testing for polytomous motivation items: administration mode effects and a comparison with short forms. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(5), 412–429.CrossRef
28.
Kendall, M. G., & Babington, S. B. (1939). The problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10(3), 275–287.CrossRef
29.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRef
30.
Yule, G. U. (1912). On the methods of measuring association between two attributes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 75, 579–652.CrossRef
31.
Warrens, M. (2008). On association coefficients for 2 × 2 tables and properties that do not depend on the marginal distributions. Psychometrika, 73, 777–789.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994). Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. British Journal of Medicine, 309, 102.
33.
Strauss, M. E. & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 19–31.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143.CrossRef
36.
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102–111.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms
Auteurs
Seung W. Choi
Steven P. Reise
Paul A. Pilkonis
Ron D. Hays
David Cella
Publicatiedatum
01-02-2010
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9560-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2010

Quality of Life Research 1/2010 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8-30 otitis media questionnaire

OriginalPaper

Health and role functioning: the use of focus groups in the development of an item bank

OriginalPaper

Caregiver education in Parkinson’s disease: formative evaluation of a standardized program in seven European countries

OriginalPaper

Measurement limit of quality-of-life questionnaires in psychiatric settings

Brief Communication

The challenge of validating SF-12 for its use with community-dwelling elderly in Israel

OriginalPaper

Impact of road traffic noise annoyance on health-related quality of life: results from a population-based study