Abstract
Modern measurement methods were applied in this study to examine the properties of a measure of functioning of the elderly. Measures of functioning form an essential element in health services and outcomes research. Several implications for scale development and improved score precision are presented in this case study. This study examined the structure of responses to the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scales using item response model (IRM) analysis methods. The analysis illustrates the extension of IRM dimensionality and item analysis to health scales in general. Attention is given to the underlying theory and appropriate interpretation of these methods for health measurement.
Data were taken from 1364 elderly Canadians participating in the caregiver component of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). The fit of a two-parameter logistic IRM was compared with a one-parameter (Rasch) model for these data. The dimensionality of responses to the scale was evaluated with an approximate χ2 test of residuals after fitting an IRM based on non-linear factor analysis. Results confirm that ADL and IADL item sets differ in the degree of disability they measure and are well represented as separate dimensions using a two-parameter IRM. Implications are drawn concerning the adequacy of the OARS disability measure for health surveys, while more general conclusions cover the precision of IRM based optimal scoring for functional disability measures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
T. Ackerman. “Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring,” Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), pp. 255–278, 1994.
K. Breithaupt and M. Gessaroli. A comparison of Stout's T and an approximate chi square test of unidimensionality in conditions of complex structure and pseudo-guessing. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Educational Measurement, New York, NY, 1996.
Canadian Institute for Health Information, Rehabilitation pilot project: development of rehabilitation standards for Canada, CIHI, Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
Canadian Institute for Health Information, Paving the way to meeting Canadian health information needs: a report on the CIHI continuing care data set project, CIHI, Ottawa, Canada, 1999.
Canadian Study of Health and Aging. “Patterns of caring for persons with dementia in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Aging, 13, pp. 470–487, 1994.
G. Carter, J. Buchanan, T. Donyo, M. Inkelas and K. Spritzer. A prospective payment system for inpatient rehabilitation. Prepared for the Health Care Financing Administration, RAND Report #PM-683-HCFA: 1997.
C. Chatfield. “Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference (with discussion),” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 158, pp. 419–466, 1995.
L. Crocker and J. Algina. Introduction to classical and modern test theory, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, FLA, 1986.
A. F. De Champlain and K. L. Tang. CHIDIM: A FORTRAN program for assessing the dimensionality of binary item responses based on McDonald's non-linear factor analytic model, Educational and Psychological Measurement, in press.
Duke University Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Multidimensional functional assessment: The OARS methodology: a manual, Duke University Pub., Durham, NC, 1978.
M. E. Gessaroli and A. De Champlain. “Using an approximate chi-square statistic to test for the number of dimensions underlying the responses to a set of items,” Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, pp. 157–179, 1996.
R. L. Gorsuch. Factor analysis, 2nd Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pub., NJ, 1983.
G. Fillenbaum. Multidimensional functional assessment of older adults: The Duke older Americans resources and services procedures, Lawrence Erlbaum Pub., Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
G. Fillenbaum. “Screening the elderly: a brief instrumental activities of daily living measure,” Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 33, pp. 698–706, 1985.
C. Fraser and R. P. Hambleton. “NOHARM: Least squares item factor analysis,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, pp. 267–269, 1988.
J. Hattie. “Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items,” Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, pp. 139–164, 1985.
R. P. Hambleton. “Principles and selected applications of IRM,” In Educational measurement, (Linn ed.), pp. 147–200, 1995.
R. P. Hambleton and R. W. Jones. “Comparison of classical test theory and IRM and their applications to test development,” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Fall, pp. 38–46, 1993.
R. P. Hambleton, H. Swaminathan and H. J. Rogers. Fundamentals of item response model, Sage, CA, 1991.
R. J. Mislevy and R. D. Bock. BILOG 3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models, 2nd Ed., Scientific Software Inc., IN, 1990.
R. P. McDonald. Factor Analysis and related methods, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub., NJ, 1985.
R. P. McDonald. “Future directions for IRM,” International Journal of Educational Measurement, 13(2), pp. 203–220, 1989.
R. P. McDonald. “Linear versus nonlinear models in item response model,” Applied Psychological Measurement 6(4), pp. 379–396, 1982.
R. P. McDonald. “Testing for approximate dimensionality,” In Modern theories of measurement: problems and issues, (D. Laveault, B. D. Zumbo, M. E. Gessaroli and M.W. Boss, eds), Edumetrics Research Group, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 63–86, 1993.
R. P. McDonald. “Goodness of fit in item response models,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), pp. 23–40, 1995.
I. McDowell and C. Jenkinson. “Development standards for health measures,” Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1, pp. 238–246, 1996.
I. McDowell and C. Newell. Health measurement: a guide to rating scale and questionnaires, 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, NY, 1996.
OARS, The OARS multidimensional functional assessment questionnaire, older american resources and services, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1988.
M. D. Reckase. “Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implications,” Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, pp. 207–230, 1979.
M. Reser. “An application of the item-response model to psychiatric epidemiology,” Sociological Methods & Research, 18(1), pp. 66–103, 1989.
W. Spector and J. Fleishman. “Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability,” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53b(1), pp. s46–s57, 1998.
SAS, SAS 6.12 user's guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1997.
D. L. Streiner and G. R. Norman. Health measurement scales, Oxford University Press, NY, 1989.
D. Thissen and L. Steinberg. “Data analysis using IRM,” Psychological Bulletin, 104(3), pp. 385–393, 1988.
V. S. Thomas, K. Rockwood and I. McDowell. “Multidimensionality in instrumental and basic activities of daily living,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, pp. 315–321, 1998.
H. Wainer. “The future of item analysis,” Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(2), pp. 191–208, 1989.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Breithaupt, K., McDowell, I. Considerations for Measuring Functioning of the Elderly: IRM Dimensionality and Scaling Analysis. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 2, 37–50 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011424117583
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011424117583