Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory

Controlled Clinical Trials

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 390-410

  Holman, Rebecca ^a   Glas, Cees A W ^b   De Haan, Rob J ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

IRT; Item response theory; Latent trait; Power; Sample size; SF 12; SF 36; SF 8; Two parameter model

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORY;

EID: 0037967463     PISSN: 01972456     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00061-8     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. McDowell I., Newall C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 1996;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
2. Cella D., Chang C.H. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care. 38:(Suppl):2000;II66-II72.
3. Fischer G.H., Molenaar I.W. Rasch models: foundations, recent developments and applications. 1995;Springer-Verlag, New York.
4. van der Linden W., Hambelton R.K. Handbook of modern item response theory. 1997;Springer, New York.
5. Teresi J.A., Kleinman M., Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Stat Med. 19:2000;1651-1683.
6. Ware J.E. Jr., Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection . Med Care. 30:1992;473-483.
7. Hays R.D., Morales L.S., Reise S.P. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 38:(Suppl):2000;II28-II42.
8. van der Linden W.J., Glas C.A.W. Computerized adaptive testing. Theory and practice. 2000;Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
9. Holman R., Lindeboom R., Vermeulen R., Glas C.A.W., de Haan R.J. The Amsterdam Linear Disability Score (ALDS) project. The calibration of an item bank to measure functional status using item response theory. Qual Life Newsletter. 27:2001;4-5.
10. Lindeboom R., Vermeulen M., Holman R., de Haan R.J. Activities of daily living instruments in clinical neurology. Optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology. 60:2003;738-742.
11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988;Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
12. Formann A.K. Measuring change in latent subgroups using dichotomous data-unconditional, conditional and semiparametric maximum-likelihood-estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 89:1994;1027-1034.
13. May K., Nicewander W.A. Measuring change conventionally and adaptively. Educ Psychol Meas. 58:1998;882-897.
14. Korevaar J.C., Merkus M.P., Jansen M.A., et al. Validation of the KDQOL-SF: a dialysis-targeted health measure. Qual Life Res. 11:2002;437-447.
15. van Manen J.G., Korevaar J.C., Dekker F.W., et al. How to adjust for comorbidity in survival studies in ESRD patients: a comparison of different indices. Am J Kidney Dis. 40:2002;82-89.
16. Ware J. Jr., Kosinski M., Keller S.D. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 34:1996;220-233.
17. QualityMetric Incoporated. The SF-8 Health survey 〈 http://www.sf36.com/tools/sf8.shtml 〉. Accessed January 2, 2003.
18. Birnbaum A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. Lord F.M., Novivk M.R. Statistical theories of mental test scores. 1968;Addison-Wesley, Reading Massachusetts.
19. Thissen D., Steinberg L. A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika. 51:1986;567-577.
20. Rasch G. Probabalistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1960;Danish Institute for Educational Research, Copenhagen.
21. Holman R., Berger M.P.F. Optimal calibration designs for tests of polytomously scored items described by item response theory models. J Educ Behav Stat. 26:2001;361-380.
22. Muraki E. A generalized partial credit model. van der Linden W.J., Hambleton R.K. Handbook of modern item response theory. 1997;Springer, New York.
23. Bock R.D., Aitkin M. Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: an application of an EM-algorithm. Psychometrika. 46:1981;443-459.
24. Glas C.A.W., Verhelst N.D. Extensions of the partial credit model. Psychometrika. 54:1989;635-659.
25. Glas C.A.W. Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika. 64:1999;273-294.
26. Verhelst N.D., Glas C.A.W., Verstralen H.H.F.M. OPLM computer program and manual. 1994;Centraal Instituut voor Toets Ontwikkeling (CITO), Arnhem, the Netherlands.
27. Cochran W.G. Sampling techniques. 1977;Wiley, New York.
28. McHorney C.A., Ware J.E. Jr., Rogers W., Raczek A.E., Lu J.F. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 30:(Suppl):1992;MS253-MS265.
29. McHorney C.A., Ware J.E. Jr., Lu J.F., Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups . Med Care. 32:1994;40-66.
30. McHorney C.A., Ware J.E. Jr., Raczek A.E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs . Med Care. 31:1993;247-263.
31. Raczek A.E., Ware J.E., Bjorner J.B., et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 51:1998;1203-1214.
32. Aaronson N.K., Muller M., Cohen P.D., et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 51:1998;1055-1068.