Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
In June 2004, the National Cancer Institute and the Drug Information Association co-sponsored the conference, “Improving the Measurement of Health Outcomes through the Applications of Item Response Theory (IRT) Modeling: Exploration of Item Banks and Computer-Adaptive Assessment.” A component of the conference was presentation of a psychometric and content analysis of a secondary dataset.
A thorough psychometric and content analysis was conducted of two primary domains within a cancer health-related quality of life (HRQOL) dataset.
HRQOL scales were evaluated using factor analysis for categorical data, IRT modeling, and differential item functioning analyses. In addition, computerized adaptive administration of HRQOL item banks was simulated, and various IRT models were applied and compared.
The original data were collected as part of the NCI-funded Quality of Life Evaluation in Oncology (Q-Score) Project. A total of 1,714 patients with cancer or HIV/AIDS were recruited from 5 clinical sites.
Items from 4 HRQOL instruments were evaluated: Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System–Short Form, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey.
Four lessons learned from the project are discussed: the importance of good developmental item banks, the ambiguity of model fit results, the limits of our knowledge regarding the practical implications of model misfit, and the importance in the measurement of HRQOL of construct definition. With respect to these lessons, areas for future research are suggested. The feasibility of developing item banks for broad definitions of health is discussed.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Chang, C.-H., & Cella, D. (1997). Equating health-related quality of life instruments in applied oncology settings. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: States of the Art Reviews, 11, 397–406.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., & de Haes, J. C. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
Cella, D. F., & Bonomi, A. E. (1995). Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology (Williston Park), 9, 47–60.
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., Brannon, J., & et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11, 570–579. PubMed
Nandakumar, R. (2004). Traditional dimensionality versus essential dimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99–117. CrossRef
Smith, E. V., Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205–231. PubMed
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2001). Mplus User’s Guide. Version 2. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In: R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. CrossRef
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–173. CrossRef
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM-algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159. CrossRef
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1997). PARSCALE 3: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded items and rating scales. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). WINSTEPS: Rasch-model computer program. Version 3.36. Chicago: MESA Press.
Verhelst, N. D., & Glas, C. A. W. (1995). The one parameter-logistic model. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 331–352. CrossRef
Stone, C. A. (2000). Monte Carlo based null distribution for an alternative goodness-of-fit test statistic in IRT models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(1), 58–75. CrossRef
Stone, C. A. (2003). Empirical power and type I error rates for an IRT fit statistic that considers the precision of ability estimates. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 566–586. CrossRef
Glas, C. A. W. (1999). Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika, 64, 273–294. CrossRef
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50–64. CrossRef
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.
Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
Smith, R. M., & Suh, K. K. (2003). Rasch fit statistics as a test of the invariance of item parameter estimates. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 153–163. PubMed
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370. CrossRef
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG TM User’s Guide multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Inc.
Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Version 2.0b.
Collins, W. C., Raju, N. S., & Edwards, J. E. (2000). Assessing differential functioning in a satisfaction scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 85, 451–461.
Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368. CrossRef
STATA. (2004). College Station, TX: StataCorp LP
Crane, P. K., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2003). DIFdetect. Seattle, WA: University of Sashington.
Box, G., & Draper, N. (1987). Empirical model building and response surfaces. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. London: Duke University Press.
- IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary
Karon F. Cook
Cayla R. Teal
Jakob B. Bjorner
Paul K. Crane
Laura E. Gibbons
Ron D. Hays
Colleen A. McHorney
Anastasia E. Raczek
Jeanne A. Teresi
Bryce B. Reeve
- Springer Netherlands