Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
McHorney, C. A. (1997). Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 743–750. PubMed
Rao, C. R. (1955). Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20, 93–111. CrossRef
Kaiser, H. F., & Henry, F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415. CrossRef
Kaiser, H. F., Henry, F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117. CrossRef
Kaiser, H. F., & Michael, W. B. (1977). Little Jiffy factor score and domain validities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 363–365. CrossRef
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).
Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, 53, 370–418. CrossRef
O’Hagan, A., & Luce, B. R. (2003). A primer on bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda, MD: MEDTAP International.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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
Crawley, J. A., Kleinman, L., & Dominitz, J. (2000). User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Information Journal, 34, 137–144.
- Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?
Dennis A. Revicki
- Springer Netherlands