Item Response Theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century

Medical Care

Volumn 38, Issue 9 SUPPL. 2, 2000, Pages

  Hays, Ron D ^a,b,d   Morales, Leo S ^a,b   Reise, Steve P ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^d Div Gen Int Med Hlth Serv Res   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer adaptive testing; Differential item functioning; Health outcomes; Item response theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034268535     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00007     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Mellenbergh GJ. Generalized linear item response theory. Psychol Bull 1994;15:300-307.
2. Hays RD, Spritzer KL, McCaffrey D, Cleary PD, Collins R, Sherbourne C, et al. The HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study (HCSUS) measures of health-related quality of life. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND; 1998. DRU-1897-AHCPR.
3. Shapiro MF, Morton SC, McCaffrey DF, Senterfitt JW, Fleishman JA, Perlman JF, et al. Variations in the care of HIV-infected adults in the United States: Results from the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study. JAMA 1999;281:2305-2315.
4. Wu AW, Hays RD, Kelly S, Malitz F, Bozzette SA. Applications of the Medical Outcomes Study health-related quality of life measures in HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res 1997;6:531-554.
5. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
6. Reise SP, Widaman KF, Pugh RH. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 1993;114:552-566.
7. Reckase MD. The past and future of multidimensional item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas 1997;21:25-36.
8. McDonald RP. The dimensionality of tests and items. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1981;34:100-117.
9. Santor DA, Ramsay JO, Zuroff DC. Nonparametric item analyses of the Beck Depression Inventory: Evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychol Assess 1994;6:255-270.
10. Rasch G. An individualistic approach to item analysis. In: Lazarsfeld PF, Henry NW, eds. Readings in mathematical social science. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press; 1966:89-108.
11. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institut; 1960.
12. Thissen D. MULTILOG user's guide: Multiple categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago, Ill: Scientific Software, Inc; 1991.
13. Samejima F. The graded response model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton R, eds. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer; 1996:85-100.
14. Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1992;47:149-174.
15. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978;43:561-573.
16. Andrich D. Distinctive and incompatible properties of two common classes of IRT models for graded responses. Appl Psychol Meas 1995;19:101-119.
17. McDonald RP, Mok MMC. Goodness of fit in item response models. Multivariate Behav Res 1995;30:23-40.
18. Bejar II. A procedure for investigating the unidimensionality of achievement tests based on item parameter estimates. J Educ Meas 1980;17:283-296.
19. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1991.
20. Embretson SE. The new rules of measurement. Psychol Assess 1996;8:341-349.
21. Menzel H. A new coefficient for scalogram analysis. Public Opinion Q 1953;17:268-280.
22. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993.
23. Milsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas 1993;17:297-334.
24. Reise SP, Widaman KF, Pugh RH. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 1993;114:552-566.
25. Morales LS, Reise SP, Hays RD. Evaluating the equivalence of health care ratings by whites and Hispanics. Med Care 2000;38:517-527.
26. Hays RD, Brown JA, Spritzer KL, Dixon WJ, Brook RH. Satisfaction with health care provided by 48 physician groups. Arch Intern Med 1998;158: 785-790.
27. Thissen D. Repealing rules that no longer apply to psychological measurement. In: Frederiksen N, Mislevy RJ, Bejar II, eds. Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:79-97.
28. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10), I: Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994,47:671-684.
29. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951,16:297-334.
30. Guttman L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 1945;10:255-282.
31. Wainer H. Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1990.
32. Testa MA. Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: Issues that affect magnitude and meaning. Med Care 2000;38(suppl II):II-166-II-174.
33. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: A general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:141-155.
34. Fischer GH. Some neglected problems in IRT. Psychometrika 1995;60:459-487.
35. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston, Mass: Kluwer-Nijhoff; 1985.
36. May K, Nicewander WA. Measuring change conventionally and adaptively. Educ Psychol Meas 1998;58:882-897.
37. Mellenbergh GJ, van den Brink WP. The measurement of individual change. Psychol Methods 1998;3:470-485.
38. Reise SP. A comparison of item- and person-fit methods of assessing model-data fit in IRT. Appl Psychol Meas 1990;14:127-137.
39. Reise SP, Flannery WP. Assessing person-fit on measures of typical performance. Appl Psychol Meas 1996;9:9-26.
40. Reise SP, Waller NG. Traitedness and the assessment of response pattern scalability. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993;65:143-151.
41. Drasgow F, Levine MV, Williams EA. Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1985;38:67-86.
42. Cattell R. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1966;1:245-276.
43. Montanelli RG, Humphreys LG. Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika 1976;41:341-347.
44. Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973;38:1-10.
45. Hattie J. Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Appl Psychol Meas 1985;9:139-164.
46. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995;7:286-299.
47. Stout W. A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika 1987;52:589-617.
48. Stout W. A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika 1990;55:293-326.
49. Lee SY, Poon WY, Bentler PM. A two stage estimation of structural equation models with continuous and polytomous variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1995;48:339-358.
50. Muthen LK, Muthen BO. The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: User's guide. Los Angeles, Calif: Muthen & Muthen; 1998.
51. Marshall GN, Hays RD, Sherbourne C, Wells KB. The structure of patient ratings of outpatient medical care. Psychol Assess 1993;5:477-483.
52. Fan X. Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educ Psychol Meas 1998;58:357-381.
53. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10), II: Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50: 451-461.
54. Nortvedt MW, Riise T, Myhr K, Nyland HI. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care. In press.
55. Hays RD, Prince-Embury S, Chen H. RAND-36 Health Status Inventory. San Antonio, Tex: Psychological Corp; 1998.
56. Birbeck GL, Kim S, Hays RD, Vickrey BG. Quality of life measures in epilepsy: How well can they detect change over time? Neurology 2000;54:1822-1827.
57. Embretson SE. Item response theory models and spurious interaction effects in factorial ANOVA designs. Appl Psychol Meas 1996b;20:201-212.
58. Wright BD, Linacre JM. User's guide to BIG-STEPS: Rasch-model computer program. Chicago, Ill: MESA Press; 1997.
59. Muraki E, Bock RD. PARSCALE (version 3.5): Parameter scaling of rating data. Chicago, Ill: Scientific Software Inc; 1998.
60. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood (user's guide). Chicago, Ill: National Educational Resources; 1981.