Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 1/2007

01-08-2007 | Original Paper

Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?

Auteurs: Dennis A. Revicki, Jeff Sloan

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

Abstract

Item response theory (IRT), item banking and computer adaptive testing (CAT) methods have the potential to provide novel platforms for the collection, analysis and dissemination of patient data on health status and well-being. There are considerable challenges associated with building and maintaining a national item bank and it is uncertain whether there is sufficient interest among key stakeholders for IRT-based and CAT measures. The most convincing activity is demonstrating that the approach is feasible, psychometrically sound and useful in different specific applications. Demonstrated success opens up the possibility of more widespread acceptability and application. As part of the development effort, there needs to be continued meetings and discussion with psychometricians, instrument developers, clinical researchers, the FDA, pharmaceutical industry researchers and a managed care organizations about the advantages and disadvantages of a national item bank.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference McHorney, C. A. (1997). Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 743–750.PubMed McHorney, C. A. (1997). Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 743–750.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., & Cella, D. F. (1997). Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: Item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Quality of Life Research, 6, 595–600.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., & Cella, D. F. (1997). Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: Item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Quality of Life Research, 6, 595–600.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference McHorney, C. A. (2002). Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the asset and health dynamics among the oldest old study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 383–394.PubMedCrossRef McHorney, C. A. (2002). Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the asset and health dynamics among the oldest old study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 383–394.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bode, R. K., Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Heinenmann A. (2003). Issues in the development of an item bank. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S52–S60.PubMedCrossRef Bode, R. K., Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Heinenmann A. (2003). Issues in the development of an item bank. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S52–S60.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 100, 441–471.PubMedCrossRef Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 100, 441–471.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rao, C. R. (1955). Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20, 93–111.CrossRef Rao, C. R. (1955). Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20, 93–111.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kaiser, H. F., & Henry, F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.CrossRef Kaiser, H. F., & Henry, F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kaiser, H. F., Henry, F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117.CrossRef Kaiser, H. F., Henry, F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kaiser, H. F., & Michael, W. B. (1977). Little Jiffy factor score and domain validities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 363–365.CrossRef Kaiser, H. F., & Michael, W. B. (1977). Little Jiffy factor score and domain validities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 363–365.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, (in press). Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, (in press).
11.
go back to reference Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, 53, 370–418.CrossRef Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, 53, 370–418.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference O’Hagan, A., & Luce, B. R. (2003). A primer on bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda, MD: MEDTAP International. O’Hagan, A., & Luce, B. R. (2003). A primer on bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda, MD: MEDTAP International.
13.
go back to reference Fryback, D. G., & Hanmer, J. E. (2005). Bayesian analysis of health status and quality of life data. In W. Lenderking & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Advancing health outcomes research methods and clinical applications (pp. 305–323). McLean, VA: International Society for Quality of Life Research. Fryback, D. G., & Hanmer, J. E. (2005). Bayesian analysis of health status and quality of life data. In W. Lenderking & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Advancing health outcomes research methods and clinical applications (pp. 305–323). McLean, VA: International Society for Quality of Life Research.
14.
15.
go back to reference FDA. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. FDA. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.
16.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A. (2005). Use of health-related quality of life measures by industry and regulatory agencies in evaluating oncology therapies. In J. Lipscomb, C. Gotay & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 550–567). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Revicki, D. A. (2005). Use of health-related quality of life measures by industry and regulatory agencies in evaluating oncology therapies. In J. Lipscomb, C. Gotay & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 550–567). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9, 887–900.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9, 887–900.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N., Marquis, P., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 21, 522–531.CrossRef Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N., Marquis, P., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 21, 522–531.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscombe, J., Teschendorf, B. (2006). Patient reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006. Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscombe, J., Teschendorf, B. (2006). Patient reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
20.
go back to reference Snyder, C. F., Watson, M. E., Jackson, J. D., Cella, D., Halyard, M. (2006). Patient reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006. Snyder, C. F., Watson, M. E., Jackson, J. D., Cella, D., Halyard, M. (2006). Patient reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
21.
go back to reference Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J., Cleeland, C. (2006). Patient reported outcomes: instrument selection issues. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006. Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J., Cleeland, C. (2006). Patient reported outcomes: instrument selection issues. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
22.
go back to reference Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J., Hays, R. (2006). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient reported outcome measures? Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006. Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J., Hays, R. (2006). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient reported outcome measures? Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
23.
go back to reference Sloan, J. A., Dueck, A., Erickson, P. A., Guess, H., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2006). Analysis, interpretation and reporting results based on patient reported outcomes. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006. Sloan, J. A., Dueck, A., Erickson, P. A., Guess, H., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2006). Analysis, interpretation and reporting results based on patient reported outcomes. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
24.
go back to reference Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., et al. (2006). An exploration of the value of health-related quality of life information from clinical research and in clinical practice? Mayo Clinic Proceedings, (in press). Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., et al. (2006). An exploration of the value of health-related quality of life information from clinical research and in clinical practice? Mayo Clinic Proceedings, (in press).
25.
go back to reference Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034.PubMedCrossRef Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Donaldson, M. (2006). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: Benefits, challenges, and next steps. Expert Review Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 6, 87–95.CrossRef Donaldson, M. (2006). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: Benefits, challenges, and next steps. Expert Review Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 6, 87–95.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.PubMed Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Ryan, J. M., Corry, J. R., Attewell, R., & Smithson, M. J. (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 11, 19–26.PubMedCrossRef Ryan, J. M., Corry, J. R., Attewell, R., & Smithson, M. J. (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 11, 19–26.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kleinman, L., Leidy, N. K., Crawley, J., Bonomi, A., Schoenfeld, P. (2001). A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Medical Care, 39, 181–189.PubMedCrossRef Kleinman, L., Leidy, N. K., Crawley, J., Bonomi, A., Schoenfeld, P. (2001). A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Medical Care, 39, 181–189.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., et al. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110, 310–317.PubMedCrossRef Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., et al. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110, 310–317.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Bushnell, D., Reilly, M. C., Galani, C., Martin, M., Ricci, J. F., et al. (2006). Validation of electronic data capture of the irritable bowel syndrome—quality of life measure, the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for irritable bowel syndrome and the EuroQol. Value in Health, 9, 98–105.PubMedCrossRef Bushnell, D., Reilly, M. C., Galani, C., Martin, M., Ricci, J. F., et al. (2006). Validation of electronic data capture of the irritable bowel syndrome—quality of life measure, the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for irritable bowel syndrome and the EuroQol. Value in Health, 9, 98–105.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Crawley, J. A., Kleinman, L., & Dominitz, J. (2000). User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Information Journal, 34, 137–144. Crawley, J. A., Kleinman, L., & Dominitz, J. (2000). User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Information Journal, 34, 137–144.
33.
go back to reference Allenby, A., Matthews, J., Beresford, J., & McLachlan, S. A. (2002). The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. European Journal of Cancer Care, 11, 245–253.PubMedCrossRef Allenby, A., Matthews, J., Beresford, J., & McLachlan, S. A. (2002). The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. European Journal of Cancer Care, 11, 245–253.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?
Auteurs
Dennis A. Revicki
Jeff Sloan
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/s11136-007-9218-0

Andere artikelen bijlage 1/2007

Quality of Life Research 1/2007 Naar de uitgave