Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)

Medical Care

Volumn 45, Issue 5 SUPPL. 1, 2007, Pages

  Reeve, Bryce B ^a   Hays, Ron D ^b   Bjorner, Jakob B ^c,k   Cook, Karon F ^d   Crane, Paul K ^f   Teresi, Jeanne A ^e,l   Thissen, David ^f   Revicki, Dennis A ^g   Weiss, David J ^h   Hambleton, Ronald K ⁱ   Liu, Honghu ⁱ   Gershon, Richard ^j   Reise, Steven P ^h   Lai, Jin Shei ^j   Cella, David ^j  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c QualityMetric Incorporated   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^f University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^g UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^j NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k Health Assessment Lab   (United States)

^l NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Computerized adaptive testing; Differential item functioning; Item response theory; Model fit; Unidimensionality

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; DATA BASE; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF DISCLOSURE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CALIBRATION; DATABASES; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247385541     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Ader DN. Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMS). Med Care. 2007;45(Suppl 1):S1-S2.
2. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrook N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap Cooperative Group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007; 45(Suppl 1):S3-S11.
3. Cook KF, O'Malley KJ, Roddey TS. Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag? Health Services Res. 2005;40(Part II):1694-1711.
4. Teresi JA. Statistical methods of examination of differential item functioning with applications to cross-cultural measurement of functional, physical and mental health. J Mental Health Aging. 2001;7:31-40.
5. Hays RD, Liu H, Spritzer K, et al. Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 2007;45(Suppl 1):S32-S38.
6. Hill CD, Edwards MC, Thissen D, et al. Practical issues in the application of item response theory: a demonstration using items from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Med Care. 2007;45(Suppl 1):S39-S47.
7. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, et al. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45(Suppl 1):S12-S21.
8. Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J, et al. Applied Linear Statistical Model. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2005:664-665, 1173-1183.
9. Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 4th ed. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Science; 2002:261-264.
10. 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.
11. Bjomer JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. 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 Res. 2003; 12:913-933.
12. Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, et al. Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: an illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Quality of Life Res. 2003; 12: 485-501.
13. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.
14. McDonald RP. The dimensionality of test and items. Br J Mathematical Stat PsychoI. 1981;34:100-117.
15. McDonald RP. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999.
16. Drasgow F, Parsons CK. Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Appl Psychol Measure. 1983; 7:189-199.
17. Harrison DA. Robustness of IRT parameter estimation to violations of the unidimensionality assumption. J Educational Stat. 1986;11:91-115.
18. Roussos L, Stout W. A multidimensionality-based DIP analysis paradigm. Appl Psychol Measure. 1996;20:355-371.
19. Stout W. A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika. 1987;52:589-617.
20. Lai J-S, Crane PK, Cella D. Factor analysis techniques for assessing sufficient unidimensionality of cancer related fatigue. Qual Life Res, 2006;15:1179-1190.
21. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 1998.
22. Jöreskog KG, Sörborn D, Du Toit S, et al. LISREL 8: New Statistical Features. Third printing with revisions. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International; 2003.
23. Muthén B, du Toit SHC, Spisic D. Robust inference using weighted least squared and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Psychometrika. 1997.
24. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998.
25. Bender P. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238-246.
26. West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. SEM with nonnormal variables. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995;56-75.
27. Hu LT, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1-55.
28. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1993.
29. Gibbons RD, Hedeker DR, Bock RD. Full-information item bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1992;57:423-436.
30. Gibbons RD, Bock RD, Hedeker D, et al. Full-information item bi-factor analysis of graded response data. Appl Psychol Measure. In press.
31. Reise SP, Haviland MG. Item response theory and the measurement of clinical change. J Personality Assess. 2005;84:228-238.
32. Jöreskog KG, Moustaki I. Factor analysis of ordinal variables with full information maximum likelihood. Unpublished manuscript downloaded from http://www.ssicentral.com. Accessed January 6, 2007.
33. Edwards MC. A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Approach to Confirmatory Item Factor Analysis, [dissertation]. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina; 2005.
34. Steinberg L, Thissen D. Uses of item response theory and the testlet concept in the measurement of psychopathology. Psychol Methods, 1996;1:81-97.
35. Wainer H, Thissen D. How is reliability related to the quality of test scores? What is the effect of local dependence on reliability? Educational Measure. 1996;15:22-29.
36. Yen WM. Scaling performance assessments: strategies for managing local item dependence. J Educational Measuret. 1993;30:187-213.
37. Yen WM. Effect of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Appl Psychol Measure. 1984;8:125-145.
38. Chen W-H, Thissen D. Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Educational Behav Stat. 1997;22:265-289.
39. Ramsay JO. A functional approach to modeling test data. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK, eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer; 1997:381-394.
40. Molenaar IW, Sijtsma K. Users Manual MSP5 for Windows: A Program for Mokken Scale Analysis for Polytomous Items [software manual], Groningen, the Netherlands: iec ProGAMMA; 2000.
41. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers H. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
42. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2000.
43. van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK, eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1997.
44. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monogr. 1969;No. 17.
45. Samejima F. Graded response model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK, eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer; 1997:85-100.
46. Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149-174.
47. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
48. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.
49. Thissen D, Orlando M. Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H, eds. Test Scoring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001:73-140.
50. Thissen D, Nelson L, Rosa K, et al. Item response theory for items scored in more than two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H, eds. Test Scoring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001:141-186.
51. Yen WM. Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model. Appl Psychol Measure. 1981;5:245-262.
52. Orlando M, Thissen D. Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Measure. 2000;24:50-64.
53. Orlando M, Thissen D. Further examination of the performance of S-X2, an item fit index for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Measure. 2003;27:289-298.
54. Hambleton RK, Han N. Assessing the fit of IRT models to educational and psychological test data: A five step plan and several graphical displays. In: Lenderking WR, Revicki D, eds. Advances in Health Outcomes Research Methods, Measurement, Statistical Analysis, and Clinical Applications. Washington, DC: International Society for Quality of life Research; 2005:57-78.
55. Reeve BB. Item response theory modeling in health outcomes measurement. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2003;3:131-145.
56. Reeve BB, Payers P. Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In: Payers P, Hays RD, eds. Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods of Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:55-73.
57. Briggs DC, Wilson M. An introduction to multidimensional measurements using Rasch models. J Appl Measure. 2003;4:87-100.
58. te Marvelde JM, Glas CAW, Landeghem GV, et al. Application of multidimensional item response theory models to longitudinal data. Educational Psychol Measure. 2006;66:5-34.
59. Segal DO. Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika. 1996;61: 331-354.
60. van der Linden WJ. Multidimensional adaptive testing with a minimum error-variance criterion. J Educ Behav Stat. 1999;24:398-412.
61. Gardner W, Kelleher KT, Pajer KA. Multidimensional adaptive testing for mental health problems in primary care. Med Care. 2002;40:812-823.
62. Ackerman TA, Gierl MJ, Walker CM. Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate educational and psychological tests. Educational Measure. 2003;22:37-51.
63. Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N, et al. Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of the EORTC QLQ-C30: Basic developments and evaluation. Quality Life Res. 2006; 15:315-329.
64. 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 Associates; 1993:67-113.
65. Teresi JA, Kleinman MK, Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Stat Med. 2000;19:1651-1683.
66. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. ApplPsychol Measure. 1993; 17:297-334.
67. Orlando M, Thissen D, Teresi J, et al. Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S134-S142.
68. Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, et al. Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S115-S123.
69. Teresi JA. Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications: advantages, disadvantages, and some neglected topics. Med Care. 2006;44(Suppl 3):S152-S170.
70. Thissen D. IRTLRDIF v2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning; 2001.
71. Raju NS, van der Linden WJ, Fleer PF. IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Appl Psychol Measure. 1995;19:353-368.
72. Flowers CP, Oshima TC, Raju NS. A description and demonstration of the polytomous DFIT framework. Appl Psychol Measure. 1999;23:309-326.
73. Raju NS. DFITP5: A Fortran Program for Calculating Dichotomous DIF/DTF [computer program]. Chicago, IL: Illinois Institute of Technology; 1999.
74. Cohen AS, Kim SH, Baker FB. Detection of differential item functioning in the graded response model. Appl Psychol Measure. 1993; 17:335-350.
75. Zumbo BD. A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIP): 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.
76. Crane PK, van Belle G, Larson EB. Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Stat Med. 2004;23:241-256.
77. Maldonado G, Greenland S. Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;138:923-936.
78. Crane PK, Hart DL, Gibbons LE, et al. A 37-item shoulder functional status item pool had negligible differential item functioning. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:478-484.
79. Muthén BO. A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika. 1984;49:115-132.
80. Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF. Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning. Med Care. 2003;41: III-75-III-86.
81. Jones RN, Gallo JJ. Education and sex differences in the Mini-Mental State Examination: effects of differential item functioning. J Gerontol. 2000;55B:273-282.
82. Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, et al. Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression. Quality Life Res. 2005;14:2277-2291.
83. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, et al. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Epidemiol. 2006;59:290-298.