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 1/2007

01-08-2007 | Original Paper

IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary

Auteurs: Karon F. Cook, Cayla R. Teal, Jakob B. Bjorner, David Cella, Chih-Hung Chang, Paul K. Crane, Laura E. Gibbons, Ron D. Hays, Colleen A. McHorney, Katja Ocepek-Welikson, Anastasia E. Raczek, Jeanne A. Teresi, Bryce B. Reeve

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | bijlage 1/2007

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

Background

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.

Objectives

A thorough psychometric and content analysis was conducted of two primary domains within a cancer health-related quality of life (HRQOL) dataset.

Research design

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.

Subjects

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.

Measures

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.

Results and conclusions

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.
vorige artikel Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales
volgende artikel The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
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.
2.
Ganz, P. A., Schag, C. A., Lee, J. J., & Sim, M. S. (1992). The CARES: A generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 1, 19–29.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Schag, C. A., Ganz, P. A., & Heinrich, R. L. (1991). CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-short form (CARES-SF). A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument. Cancer, 68, 1406–1413.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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
5.
Cella, D. F., & Bonomi, A. E. (1995). Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology (Williston Park), 9, 47–60.
6.
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
7.
Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2, 217–227.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Nandakumar, R. (2004). Traditional dimensionality versus essential dimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99–117.CrossRef
10.
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
11.
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2001). Mplus User’s Guide. Version 2. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
12.
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.
13.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRef
14.
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.
15.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
16.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
17.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.CrossRef
18.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–173.CrossRef
19.
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM-algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159.CrossRef
20.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17.
21.
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.
22.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). WINSTEPS: Rasch-model computer program. Version 3.36. Chicago: MESA Press.
23.
Verhelst, N. D., & Glas, C. A. W. (1995). The one parameter-logistic model. New York: Springer-Verlag.
24.
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
25.
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
26.
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
27.
Glas, C. A. W. (1999). Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika, 64, 273–294.CrossRef
28.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50–64.CrossRef
29.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.
30.
Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
31.
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
32.
Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Klee, M. C., & Kreiner, S. (1995). Test for item bias in a quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 805–816.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370.CrossRef
34.
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.
35.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
36.
Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG TM User’s Guide multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Inc.
37.
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.
38.
Collins, W. C., Raju, N. S., & Edwards, J. E. (2000). Assessing differential functioning in a satisfaction scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 85, 451–461.
39.
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
40.
STATA. (2004). College Station, TX: StataCorp LP
41.
Crane, P. K., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2003). DIFdetect. Seattle, WA: University of Sashington.
42.
Box, G., & Draper, N. (1987). Empirical model building and response surfaces. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
43.
Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. London: Duke University Press.
44.
Gardner, W., Kelleher, K. J., & Pajer, K. A. (2002). Multidimensional adaptive testing for mental health problems in primary care. Medical Care, 40, 812–823.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N., Fayers, P., Sprangers, M., & Bjorner, J. B. (2006). Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of the EORTC QLQ-C30: Basic developments and evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15, 315–329.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary
Auteurs
Karon F. Cook
Cayla R. Teal
Jakob B. Bjorner
David Cella
Chih-Hung Chang
Paul K. Crane
Laura E. Gibbons
Ron D. Hays
Colleen A. McHorney
Katja Ocepek-Welikson
Anastasia E. Raczek
Jeanne A. Teresi
Bryce B. Reeve
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2007
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave bijlage 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9177-5

Andere artikelen bijlage 1/2007

Quality of Life Research 1/2007 Naar de uitgave

Original Paper

Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by Agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services

Editorial notes

Applying item response theory to enhance health outcomes assessment

Original Paper

Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes

Original Paper

Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments

Original Paper

Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement

OriginalPaper

Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies