Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™)

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 913-933

  Bjorner, Jakob B ^a,b   Kosinski, Mark ^a   Ware Jr, John E ^a,c  

^a QualityMetric Incorporated   (United States)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT   (Denmark)

^c Health Assessment Lab   (United States)

Author keywords

Computerized adaptive testing; Disability; Headache; Health status; Impact; Item response theory; Migraine; Quality of life; Questionnaires; Severity; Tension headache

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; DISABILITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEADACHE; HEADACHE IMPACT TEST; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIGRAINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; TENSION HEADACHE; THEORY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CALIBRATION; DISABLED PERSONS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HEADACHE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 0242407001     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1026163113446     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Breslau N, Rasmussen BK. The impact of migraine: Epidemiology, risk factors, and co-morbidities. Neurology 2001; 56: S4-S12.
2. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Simon D, Lipton RB. Epidemiology of tension-type headache. JAMA 1998; 279: 381-383.
3. Stewart WF, Shechter A, Lipton RB. Migraine heterogeneity. Disability, pain intensity, and attack frequency and duration. Neurology 1994; 44: S24-S39.
4. The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316-321.
5. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Goadsby PJ. Headache-related disability in the management of migraine. Neurology 2001; 56: S1-S3.
6. Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine - current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 257-270.
7. Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, et al. Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache 2000; 40: 204-215.
8. Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Galer BS, Berzon RA. A new instrument to assess the long-term quality of life effects from migraine: Development and psychometric testing of the MSQOL. Headache 1996; 36: 484-492.
9. Patrick DL, Hurst BC, Hughes J. Further development and testing of the migraine-specific quality of life (MSQOL) measure. Headache 2000; 40: 550-560.
10. Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Aggarwal SK, Newman CW. The Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI). Neurology 1994; 44: 837-842.
11. Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Norris L, Newman CW. Headache disability inventory (HDI): Short-term test-retest reliability and spouse perceptions. Headache 1995; 35: 534-539.
12. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D, Liberman J, Von Korff M. Validity of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 1999; 79: 291-301.
13. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, Sawyer J. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001; 56: S20-S28.
14. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K, Liberman J, Sawyer J. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 107-114.
15. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, Sawyer J, Lee C, Liberman JN. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000; 88: 41-52.
16. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality Life Res 1995; 4: 293-307.
17. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical studies. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 887-902.
18. Muraki E. Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Appl Psychol Measur 1993; 17: 351-363.
19. Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Eignor D, et al. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
20. Wainer H, Mislevy RJ. Item Response Theory, Item Calibration, and Proficiency Estimation. In: Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ, Steinberg L, Thissen D (eds), Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000; 61-101.
21. Thissen D, Orlando M. Item Response Theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H (eds), Test Scoring, Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum, 2001; 73-140.
22. Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Batenhorst A, Cady RK. The responsiveness of headache impact scales scored using 'classical' and 'modern' psychometric methods: A re-analysis of three clinical trials. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 903-912.
23. Ware JE Jr, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000; 38: II73-II82.
24. Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. London: Duke University Press, 1992.
25. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64-69.
26. Muthen BO, Muthen L. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén &Muthén, 2001.
27. Bollen KA, Barb KH. Pearson's r and coarsely categorized measures. Am Sociol Rev 1981; 46: 232-239.
28. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
29. Ramsay JO. Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika 1991; 56: 611-630.
30. Ramsay JO. TestGraf - A Program for the Graphical Analysis of Multiple Choice Test and Questionnaire Data. Montreal: McGill University, 1995.
31. Muraki E. A Generalized Partial Credit Model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. Berlin: Springer, 1997: 153-164.
32. Bock RD, Aitkin M. marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1981; 46: 443-459.
33. Muraki E, Bock RD. Parscale - IRT based Test Scoring and Item Analysis for Graded Open-ended Exercises and Performance Tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc., 1996.
34. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 935-952.
35. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 981-1002.
36. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1993.
37. Thissen D, Steinberg L, Wainer H. Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass, 1993: 67-113.
38. Muraki E. Stepwise analysis of differential item functioning based on multiple-group partial credit model. Educ Meas 1999; 36: 217-232.
39. Swaminathan H, Rogers JH. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J Educ Measur 1990; 27: 361-370.
40. Zumbo BD. 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, 1999.
41. Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991; 78: 691-692.
42. Bock RD, Mislevy RJ. Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Appl Psychol Meas 1982; 6: 431-444.
43. Jhingran P, Davis SM, LaVange LM, Miller DW, Helms RW. MSQ: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 707-717.
44. Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236: 157-161.
45. Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Sawyer JPC, Blakeborough P, Stewart WF. Migraine: Diagnosis and assessment of disability. Rev Contemp Pharmacotherapy 2000; 11: 63-73.
46. Jobe JB, Tourangeau R, Smith AF. Contributions of survey research to the understanding of memory. Cognitive Psychol 1993; 7: 567-584.
47. Glas CAW. Modifications indices for the 2-PL and the Nominal Response Model. Psychometrika 1999; 64: 273-294.
48. Zieky M. Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, 1993: 337-347.
49. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. London: Sage Publications, 1991.