Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents' perceptions of their children's dental care

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 11 SUPPL. 3, 2006, Pages

  Hays, Ron D ^a,b   Brown, Julie ^a   Brown, Lorraine U ^c   Spritzer, Karen L ^b   Crall, James J ^d  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board   (United States)

^d UCLA SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

CAHPS ; Classical test theory; Item response theory; Perceptions of dental care

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONSUMER; DENTAL CARE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MEDICAID; METHODOLOGY; PARENT; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; CALIFORNIA; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMMUNICATION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DENTAL CARE FOR CHILDREN; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAID; PARENTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33750312451     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245144.90229.d0     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Farley DO, Elliott MN, Short PF, et al. Impact of CAHPS® performance information on health plan choices by Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries. Med Care Res Rev. 2002;59:319-336.
2. Farley DO, Short PF, Elliott MN, et al. Effects of CAHPS® health plan performance information on plan choices by New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries. Health Serv Res. 2002;37:985-1007.
3. Crall JJ, Szlyk CI, Schneider DA, et al. Pediatric oral health performance measurement: current capabilities and future directions. J Public Health Dent. 1999;59:136-141.
4. Crofton C, Lubalin JS, Darby C. Foreword. Med Care. 1999;37:MS1-MS9.
5. Hays RD, Shaul JA, Williams VSL, et al. Psychometric properties of the CAHPS™ 1.0 survey measures. Med Care. 1999;37:MS22-MS31.
6. Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS®) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:1509-1527.
7. DeVellis RF. Classical test theory. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S50-S59.
8. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
9. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston, MS: Kluwer-Nijhoff; 1985.
10. st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II-28-II-42.
11. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297.
12. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420.
13. Hays RD, Hayashi T. Beyond internal consistency reliability: rationale and user's guide for multitrait scaling program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Meth Instr Comp. 1990;22:167.
14. Samejima F. The graded response model. In: van der Liden WJ, Hambleton R, eds. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer; 1996:85-100.
15. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1987.
16. Schaefer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Meth. 2002;7:147-177.
17. Hays R, Wang E. Multitrait Scaling Program: MULTI. Proceedings of the 17th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference; 1992;1151-1156.
18. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy Bull. 1990;107:238-246.
19. Browne RA, Cudeck MW. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen K, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1993:136-162.
20. Fan X. Item response theory and classical test theory: an empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educ Psychol Meas. 1998;58:357-381.
21. 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.
22. Nortvedt MW, Riise T, Myhr K, et al. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12 and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care. 2000;38:1022-1028.