Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 16, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2007, Pages 195-199

  Hays, Ron D ^a,c   Lipscomb, Joseph ^b  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Health outcomes measurement; Item response theory; Next steps

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CONFERENCE PAPER; EDUCATION; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH; INDUSTRY; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THEORY;

CONGRESSES; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOFTWARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34447136274     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9175-7     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Bech, P., Allerup, P., & Rosenberg, R. (1978). The Marke-Nyman temperament scale: evaluation of transferability using the Rasch item analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 57, 49-58.
2. Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., & Keith, R. A. et al. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1, 59-74.
3. Heinemann, A. W., Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. et al. (1993). Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 566-573.
4. Haley, S. M., McHorney, C. A., & Ware, J. E. (1994). Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10), I: Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 671-684.
5. Gonin, R., Lloyd, S., & Cella, D. (1996). Establishing equivalence between scaled measures of quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 5, 20-26.
6. Cella, D., & Chang, C. H. (2000). A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Medical Care, 38, II-66-II-72.
7. Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Medical Care, 38, II-60-II-65.
8. Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st Century. Medical Care, 38, II-29-II-42.
9. McHorney, C. A., & Cohen, A. S. (2000). Equating health status measures with item response theory: Illustrations with functional status items. Medical Care, 38, II-43-II-59.
10. Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Medical Care, 38, II-73-II-82.
11. Chan, K. S., Orlando, M., & Ghosh-Dastidar, B. et al. (2004). The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression (CES-D) scale: An item response theory analysis. Medical Care, 42, 281-289.
12. Scholle, S. H., Weisman, C. S., & Anderson, R. T. (2004). The development and validation of the primary care satisfaction survey for women. Women's Health Issues, 14, 35-50.
13. Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E. (2003). 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, 12, 913-933.
14. Quality of Life Newsletter. (2004). Item banking special issue. Lyon, France: MAPI Research Trust.
15. National Institutes of Health. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: Dynamic Tools to Measure Health Outcomes from the Patient's Perspective. Available at http://www.nihpromis.org/. Last accessed January 5, 2007.
16. Bjorner, J. B., & Ware, J. E. (1998). Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes. Medical Outcomes Trust Monitor. Boston, Massachusetts. Available at: http://www.outcomes-trust.org/monitor/0498mntr.pdf. Last accessed January 7, 2007.
17. Lohr, K. N., Aaronson, N. K., & Alonso, J. et al. (1996). Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clinical Therapeutics, 18, 979-992.
18. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193-205.
19. Christensen, K. B., & Bjorner, J. B. (2003). SAS macros for Rasch based latent variable modeling. Technical Report # 03/13. Copenhagen: Department of Biostatistics.
20. STATA. (2003). Version 8. Texas: STATA Press.
21. Elashoff, J. D. (2000). nQuery advisor (Version 4.0). Cork, Ireland: Statistical Solutions.
22. Rasch Measurement Transactions. Developing item response theory software for outcomes and behavioral measurement: Solicitation of the Public Health Service for Small Business Innovation Research contract proposals #211. Available at: http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt182h.htm. Last accessed on January 7, 2007.