Measuring disease impact in disabling neurological conditions: Are patients' perspectives and scientific rigor compatible?

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 721-724

  Hobart, Jeremy ^a  

^a DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health measurement; Item Response Theory; Psychometrics; Rasch item analysis

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT; PSYCHOMETRY; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DISABLED PERSONS; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 0036916826     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00019052-200212000-00010     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Bond T, Fox C. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement for the Human Sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. An excellent explanation of Rasch measurement but not aimed specifically at health measurement.
2. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, et al. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: The 12-item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology (in press).
3. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, et al. Evidence-based measurement: Which disability scale for neurological rehabilitation? Neurology 2001; 57:639-644
4. Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Lamping DL, et al. The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis (MS): Why basic assumptions must be tested. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001; 71:363-370.
5. Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.
6. Cone JD, Foster SL. Training in measurement: Always the bridesmaid. Am Psychol 1991; 46:653-654.
7. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, et al. Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18:979-992.
8. McDowell I, Jenkinson C. Development standards for health measures. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1:238-246.
9. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials [monograph]. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2 (14).
10. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
11. Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
12. Bjorner JB, Ware Jr JE. Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes. Medical Outcomes Trust Monitor 1998; 3:1-5.
13. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38:28-42.
14. McHorney CA, Cohen AS. Equating health status measures with item response theory: Illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000; 38:43-59.
15. Hambleton RK. Item response theory modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care 2000; 38:60-65.
16. Cella D, Chang C-H. A discussion of item response theory and its application in health status measurement. Med Care 2000; 38:66-72.
17. Ware Jr JE, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computer adaptive testing. A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000; 38:73-82.
18. Wright BD. Fundamental measurement for psychology. In: Embretson SE, Hershberger SL, editors. The New Rules of Measurement: What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999. pp. 65-104.
19. Choppin B. An item bank using sample free calibration. Nature 1968; 219:870-872.
20. Wright BD. Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement 1977; 14:97-116.
21. Wainer H, Flaugher R, Green BF, et al. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1990.
22. Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. J Eval Clin Pract 1999; 5:401-416.
23. Badia X, Prieto L, Roset M, et al. Development of a short osteoporosis quality of lfie questionniare by equating items from two existing instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55:32-40.
24. Massof R. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79:516-552. An excellent paper detailing the history of measuring vision disability. Massof demonstrates and explains the limitations of raw score and IRT and the advantages of Rasch analysis.
25. Fayers P, Hand D. Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. J R Stat Soc 2002; 165:1-21.
26. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA; 1979.
27. Wright BD, Masters G. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA; 1982.