Top

Quality of Life Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

27-05-2021 | Special Section: Non-parametric IRT

More flexible response functions for the PROMIS physical functioning item bank by application of a monotonic polynomial approach

Auteurs: Carl F. Falk, Felix Fischer

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2022

Abstract

Purpose

In developing item banks for patient reported outcomes (PROs), nonparametric techniques are often used for investigating empirical item response curves, whereas final banks usually use parsimonious parametric models. A flexible approach based on monotonic polynomials (MP) provides a compromise by modeling items with both complex and simpler response curves. This paper investigates the suitability of MPs to PRO data.

Method

Using PROMIS Wave 1 data (N = 15,725) for Physical Function, we fitted an MP model and the graded response model (GRM). We compared both models in terms of overall model fit, latent trait estimates, and item/test information. We quantified possible GRM item misfit using approaches that compute discrepancies with the MP. Through simulations, we investigated the ability of the MP to perform well versus the GRM under identical data collection conditions.

Results

A likelihood ratio test (p < 0.001) and AIC (but not BIC) indicated better fit for the MP. Latent trait estimates and expected test scores were comparable between models, but we observed higher information for the MP in the lower range of physical functioning. Many items were flagged as possibly misfitting and simulations supported the performance of the MP. Yet discrepancies between the MP and GRM were small.

Conclusion

The MP approach allows inclusion of items with complex response curves into PRO item banks. Information for the physical functioning item bank may be greater than originally thought for low levels of physical functioning. This may translate into small improvements if an MP approach is used.

vorige artikel A two-step, test-guided Mokken scale analysis, for nonclustered and clustered data

volgende artikel The Crit coefficient in Mokken scale analysis: a simulation study and an application in quality-of-life research

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

For a recent discussion on the merits of collapsing categories, see Harel and Steele [25].

Estimation options were changed slightly to increase computational speed and are described in Supplementary Materials.

Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Cella, D. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: Using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23(5 Suppl 39), S53–S57. PubMed

Choi, S. W., Schalet, B., Cook, K. F., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment, 26, 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035768 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x CrossRef

Samejima, F. (1972). A general model of free-response data. Psychometric Monographs No. 18. Psychometric Society.

Samejima, F. (2010). The general graded response model. In M. Nering & R. Ostini (Eds.), Handbook of polytomous item response theory models: Developments and applications (pp. 77–107). Taylor & Francis.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2014). The PROMIS physical function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and show to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Meijer, R. R., & Baneke, J. J. (2004). Analyzing psychopathology items: A case for nonparametric item response theory modeling. Psychological Methods, 9, 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.354 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (2013). PROMIS instrument development and validation scientific standards version 2.0. Retrieved from, http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf

11.

Falk, C. F., & Cai, L. (2016). Semi-parametric item response functions in the context of guessing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12111 CrossRef

12.

Wells, C. S., & Bolt, D. M. (2008). Investigation of a nonparametric procedure for assessing goodness-of-fit in item response theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340701796464 CrossRef

13.

Falk, C. F. (2019). Model selection for monotonic polynomial item response models. Quantitative psychology: The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, New York, NY, 2018 (pp. 75–85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_7 CrossRef

14.

Falk, C. F. (2020). The monotonic polynomial graded response model: Implementation and a comparative study. Applied Psychological Measurement, 44, 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621620909897 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Falk, C. F., & Cai, L. (2016). Maximum marginal likelihood estimation of a monotonic polynomial generalized partial credit model with applications to multiple group analysis. Psychometrika, 81, 434–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9428-7 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Liang, L., & Browne, M. W. (2015). A quasi-parametric method for fitting flexible item response functions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 5–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614556816 CrossRef

17.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18.

Feuerstahler, L. M. (2016). Exploring alternate latent trait metrics with filtered monotonic polynomial IRT models (PhD thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.

19.

Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293801 CrossRef

20.

Mislevy, R. J. (1986). Bayes modal estimation in item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293979 CrossRef

21.

Feuerstahler, L. M. (2019). Metric transformations and the filtered monotonic polynomial item response model. Psychometrika, 84, 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9642-9 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Pilkonis, P., Hays, R. D., & Cella, D. (2010). Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms. Quality of Life Research, 19, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9560-5 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cella, D. (2015). PROMIS 1 wave 1. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/0NGAKG.

24.

Liu, H. H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., & Hays, R. D. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Harel, D., & Steele, R. J. (2018). An information matrix test for the collapsing of categories under the partial credit model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 43, 721–750. CrossRef

26.

Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O., & Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Nonparametric item analyses of the Beck depression inventory: Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychological Assessment, 6, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.3.255 CrossRef

27.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sijtsma, K., & van der Ark, L. A. (2003). Investigation and treatment of missing item scores in test and questionnaire data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3804_4 CrossRefPubMed

29.

van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2005). The effect of missing data imputation on Mokken scale analysis. In L. A. van der Ark, M. A. Croon, & K. Sijtsma (Eds.), New developments in categorical data analysis for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 147–166). Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

van Ginkel, J. R., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2007). Multiple imputation of item scores in test and questionnaire data, and influence on psychometric results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701360803 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Wind, S. A., & Patil, Y. J. (2018). Exploring incomplete rating designs with Mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78, 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416675393 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritikin, J. N., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R., Kickpatrick, R. M., Estabrook, R., Bates, T. C., Maes, H. H., & Boker, S. M. (2016). OpenMx 2.0: Extended structural equation and statistical modeling. Psychometrika, 81, 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9435-8 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pritikin, J. N., Hunter, M. D., & Boker, S. M. (2015). Modular open-source software for item factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75, 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414554615 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Pritikin, J. N. (2016). Rpf: Response probability functions. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpf

35.

Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168200600405 CrossRef

36.

Chalmers, R. P. (2018). Model-based measures for detecting and quantifying response bias. Psychometrika, 83, 696–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9626-9 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Chalmers, R. P., Counsell, A., & Flora, D. B. (2016). It might not make a big DIF: Improved differential test functioning statistics that account for sampling variability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415584576 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Edelen, M. O., Stucky, B. D., & Chandra, A. (2015). Quantifying “problematic” DIF within an IRT framework: Application to a cancer stigma index. Quality of Life Research, 24, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0540-4 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

40.

Waller, N. G., & Feuerstahler, L. (2017). Bayesian modal estimation of the four-parameter item response model in real, realistic, and idealized data sets. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1292893 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Feuerstahler, L. M. (2018). Sources of error in IRT trait estimation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42, 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621617733955 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1502_01 CrossRef

43.

Douglas, J., & Cohen, A. (2001). Nonparametric item response function estimation for assessing parametric model fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466210122032046 CrossRef

44.

Liang, T., & Wells, C. S. (2009). A model fit statistic for generalized partial credit model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 913–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332222 CrossRef

45.

Liang, T., & Wells, C. S. (2015). A nonparametric approach for assessing goodness-of-fit of IRT models in a mixed format test. Applied Measurement in Education, 28, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.1002918 CrossRef

46.

Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2005). Further empirical results on parametric versus nonparametric IRT modeling of Likert-type personality data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 261–279. CrossRef

47.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Titel: More flexible response functions for the PROMIS physical functioning item bank by application of a monotonic polynomial approach
Auteurs: Carl F. Falk
Felix Fischer
Publicatiedatum: 27-05-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02873-7

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Tips voor Mijn BSL

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

More flexible response functions for the PROMIS physical functioning item bank by application of a monotonic polynomial approach

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Tips voor Mijn BSL

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2022

Cross-cultural adaptation of the SWAL-QOL and the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire (SSQ) into French-Canadian and preliminary assessment for their use in an oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) population

Combining EQ-5D-5L items into a level summary score: demonstrating feasibility using non-parametric item response theory using an international dataset

Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review

Development of a physical function outcome measure to harmonize comparisons between three Asian adult populations

Comparison of patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures in lower back rehabilitation: introducing a new integrated performance measure (t2D)

Developing and testing a cognitive bolt-on for the EQ-5D-Y (Youth)