Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The use of item banks and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) begins with clear definitions of important outcomes, and references those definitions to specific questions gathered into large and well-studied pools, or “banks” of items. Items can be selected from the bank to form customized short scales, or can be administered in a sequence and length determined by a computer programmed for precision and clinical relevance. Although far from perfect, such item banks can form a common definition and understanding of human symptoms and functional problems such as fatigue, pain, depression, mobility, social function, sensory function, and many other health concepts that we can only measure by asking people directly. The support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as witnessed by its cooperative agreement with measurement experts through the NIH Roadmap Initiative known as PROMIS (www.nihpromis.org), is a big step in that direction. Our approach to item banking and CAT is practical; as focused on application as it is on science or theory. From a practical perspective, we frequently must decide whether to re-write and retest an item, add more items to fill gaps (often at the ceiling of the measure), re-test a bank after some modifications, or split up a bank into units that are more unidimensional, yet less clinically relevant or complete. These decisions are not easy, and yet they are rarely unforgiving. We encourage people to build practical tools that are capable of producing multiple short form measures and CAT administrations from common banks, and to further our understanding of these banks with various clinical populations and ages, so that with time the scores that emerge from these many activities begin to have not only a common metric and range, but a shared meaning and understanding across users. In this paper, we provide an overview of item banking and CAT, discuss our approach to item banking and its byproducts, describe testing options, discuss an example of CAT for fatigue, and discuss models for long term sustainability of an entity such as PROMIS. Some barriers to success include limitations in the methods themselves, controversies and disagreements across approaches, and end-user reluctance to move away from the familiar.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gershon, R., Cella, D., Dineen, K. et al. (2003). Item response theory and health-related quality of life in cancer. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 3(6), 783–791. CrossRef
Gershon, R. (2005). Computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Applied Measurements, 6(1), 109–127.
Bunderson, V. C., Inouye, D. K., & Olsen, J. B. (1986). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 367–407). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 310–314. CrossRef
Reckase, M. D. (1989). Adaptive testing: The evolution of a good idea. Measurement Issues and Practice, 8(3), 11–15. CrossRef
McHorney, C. A., & Cohen, A. S. (2000). Equating health status measures with Item Response Theory: Illustrations with functional status items. Medical Care, 38(Suppl 9), II43–II59. PubMed
Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of Item Response Theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38(Suppl 9), 473–483.
Cella, D., & Chang, C. H. (2000). A discussion of Item Response Theory (IRT) and its applications in health status assessment. Medical Care, 38(Suppl 9), II66–II72. PubMed
Velikova, G., Brown, J., Booth, L., Smith, A., Bown, P., Lynch, P., & Selby, P. (2003). A randomized study of quality of life measurements in oncology practice - effects on patient well-being and process of care. Proceedings of the American society of clinical oncology, 22, 728.
Jacobsen, P. B., Davis, K., & Cella, D. (2002). Assessing quality of life in research and clinical practice. Oncology, 16(Suppl 9), 133–139. PubMed
Bode, R. K., Cella, D., Lai, J. -S. et al. (2003). Developing an initial physical function item bank from existing sources. Journal of Applied Measurements, 4(2), 124–136.
Bode, R., Lai, J. -S., Heinemann, A. et al. (2006). Expansion of a physical function item bank and development of an abbreviated form for clinical research. Journal of Applied Measurements, 7(1), 1–15.
Lai, J. -S., Dineen, K., Reeve, B. et al. (2005). An item response theory based pain item bank can enhance measurement precision. Journal of Pain and Symptomology Management, 30(3), 278–288. CrossRef
MSP for Windows (Version 5) [computer program]. (2000).
Bode, R. K., Lai, J. -S., Cella, D. et al. (2003). Issues in the development of an item bank. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabiitation, 84(4 Suppl 2), S52–S60. CrossRef
Carlson, L. E., Speca, M., Hagen, N. et al. (2001). Computerized quality-of-life screening in a cancer pain clinic. Journal of Palliative Care, 17(1), 46–52. PubMed
Velikova, G., Wright, P., Smith, A. B. et al. (2001) Self-reported quality of life of individual cancer patients: Concordance of results with disease course and medical records. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(7), 2064–2073. PubMed
Yount, S., Davis, K., Cella, D. et al. (2003). Brief patient symptom assessment: Research and clinical applications. To be presented at the 10th World Conference on Lung Cancer.
Hahn, E. A., Cella, D., Dobrez, D. G. et al. (2003). Quality of life assessment for low literacy Latinos: A new multimedia program for self-administration. Journal of Oncology Management, 12(5), 9–12. PubMed
Davis, K. M., Chang, C. -H., Lai, J. -S., & Cella, D. (2002). Feasibility and acceptability of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for fatigue monitoring in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 11(7), 134.
Bergstrom, B. A., & Lunz, M. E. (1999). CAT for certification and licensure. In F. Drasgow & J. B. Olson-Buchanan (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment (pp. 67–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gershon, R. C. (2004) The ABCs of Computerized Adaptive Testing. In T. M. Wood & W. Zhi (Eds.), Measurement issues and practice in physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics.
Bergstrom, B., & Cline, A. (2003). Beyond multiple choice: Innovations in professional testing. CLEAR Exam Review. Summer.
van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J. (2000) Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: theory and practice. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
- The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment
- Springer Netherlands