Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The Quality-of-life (QOL) Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) standardizes the content and scoring of QOL impact attributed to different diseases using item response theory (IRT). This study examined the IRT invariance of the QDIS-standardized IRT parameters in an independent sample.
The differential functioning of items and test (DFIT) of a static short-form (QDIS-7) was examined across two independent sources: patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the TRACE-CORE study (N = 1,544) and chronically ill US adults in the QDIS standardization sample. “ACS-specific” IRT item parameters were calibrated and linearly transformed to compare to “standardized” IRT item parameters. Differences in IRT model-expected item, scale and theta scores were examined. The DFIT results were also compared in a standard logistic regression differential item functioning analysis.
Item parameters estimated in the ACS sample showed lower discrimination parameters than the standardized discrimination parameters, but only small differences were found for thresholds parameters. In DFIT, results on the non-compensatory differential item functioning index (range 0.005–0.074) were all below the threshold of 0.096. Item differences were further canceled out at the scale level. IRT-based theta scores for ACS patients using standardized and ACS-specific item parameters were highly correlated (r = 0.995, root-mean-square difference = 0.09). Using standardized item parameters, ACS patients scored one-half standard deviation higher (indicating greater QOL impact) compared to chronically ill adults in the standardization sample.
The study showed sufficient IRT invariance to warrant the use of standardized IRT scoring of QDIS-7 for studies comparing the QOL impact attributed to acute coronary disease and other chronic conditions.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Rector, T. S., Kubo, S. H., & Cohn, J. N. (1987). Patients’ self-assessment of their congestive heart failure. Part 2: content, reliability and validity of a new measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. Heart Failure, 3, 198–209.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Harrington, M., Guyer, R., & Boulanger, R. (2012). A system for integrating generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Patient Reported Outcomes Newsletter, 48(Fall), 2–4.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Gandek, B., & Guyer, R. (2014). Measuring disease-specific quality of life (QOL) impact: A manual for users of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS ® ). Worcester, MA: JWRG Incorporated.
Ware, J. E. Jr., Guyer, R., Gandek, B., Deng, N. Standardizing disease- specific quality of life (QOL) impact measures: Development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS ® ) (submitted).
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370. CrossRef
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.
Oldroyd, J. C., Cyril, S., Wijayatilaka, B. S., et al. (2013). Evaluating the impact of depression, anxiety & autonomic function on health related quality of life, vocational functioning and health care utilisation in acute coronary syndrome patients: the ADVENT study protocol. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 13, 103. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Howard, K. I., & Forehand, G. G. (1962). A method for correcting item-total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 731–735. CrossRef
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. CrossRef
Oshima, T. C., & Morris, S. B. (2008). Raju’s differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT). Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 43–50. CrossRef
Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309–326. CrossRef
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51. CrossRef
Swaminathan, H., Hambleton, R. K., & Rogers, H. J. (2007). Assessing the fit of item response theory models. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics: Psychometrics (pp. 683–718). London: Elsevier Publishing Co.
Hambleton, R. K., & Han, N. (2005). Assessing the fit of IRT models to educational and psychological test data: A five step plan and several graphical displays. In W. R. Lenderking & D. Revicki (Eds.), Advances in health outcomes research methods, measurement, statistical analysis, and clinical applications (pp. 57–78). Washington: Degnon Associates.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). PARSCALE 4: IRT item analysis and test scoring for rating scale data [computer program]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
Liang, T., Han, K. T., & Hambleton, R. K. (2009). ResidPlots-2: Computer software for IRT graphical residual analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(5), 411–412. CrossRef
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: The Guilford Press.
Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201–210. CrossRef
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. CrossRef
Sukin, Tia M. (2010). Item parameter drift as an indication of differential opportunity to learn: An exploration of item flagging methods & accurate classification of examinees. Doctoral dissertation. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/301 Accessed 13 March 2014.
Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495–502. CrossRef
Fleer, P. F. (1993). A Monte Carlo assessment of a new measure of item and test bias. Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2266.
Raju, N. (2000). Notes accompanying the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) computer program. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
Teresi, J. A., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., et al. (2007). Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): Applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Quality of Life Research, 16, 43–68. PubMedCrossRef
Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197–207. CrossRef
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 ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
Reeve, B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J., et al., on behalf of the PROMIS cooperative group. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health–related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S22–S31.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Guyer, R., Harrington, M., & Boulanger, R. (2012). Evaluation of a more comprehensive survey item bank for standardizing disease-specific impact comparisons across chronic conditions. Quality of Life Research, 21(1 Suppl), 27–28.
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
Candell, G. L., & Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking metrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253–260. CrossRef
Hidalgo-Montesinos, M. D., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2002). Two-stage equating in differential item functioning detection under the graded response model with the Raju area measures and the Lord statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 32–44. CrossRef
Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 113–141. CrossRef
Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 1–17. CrossRef
Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2013). Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: An IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System initiative. Quality of Life Research, 23, 217–227. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
- Testing item response theory invariance of the standardized Quality-of-life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) in acute coronary syndrome patients: differential functioning of items and test
Milena D. Anatchkova
Molly E. Waring
Kyung T. Han
John E. Ware Jr.
- Springer International Publishing