Enhanced interpretation of instrument scales using the rasch model

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 541-550

  Thompson, John R ^a   Cappelleri, Joseph C ^a   Getter, Christine ^a   Pleil, Andreas ^a   Reichel, Martin ^b   Wolf, Sebastian ^c  

^a PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Age related macular degeneration; Instrument scales; Item response theory; Rasch model; Visual function questionnaire

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION;

EID: 34447256782     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286150704100413     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bernth-Petersen P. Visual functioning in cataract patients: methods of measuring and results. Acta Ophthamol. 1981;59:198-205.
2. Sloane ME, Ball K, Owsley C, Bruni SR, Roenkar DL. The Visual Activities Questionnaire: developing an instrument for assessing problems in everyday visual tasks. Technical Digest, Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System, topical meeting of the Optical Society of America; January, 1992; Washington, DC:26-29.
3. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the "Activities of Daily Vision Scale": a measure of visual functional status. Med Care. 1992;30:1111-1126.
4. Bergman B, Sjostrend J. Vision and visual disability in daily life of a representative population sample aged 82 years. Acta Ophthamol. 1992;70:33-43.
5. Steinburg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataracts. Arch Ophthamol. 1994;112:630-638.
6. Pesudovs K, Coster DJ. Validation of a new tool for the assessment of subjective visual disability. Br J Ophthamol. 1998;82:617-624.
7. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. Design of the low vision quality of life questionnaire and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. Am J Ophthamol. 2000;130:793-802.
8. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, et al. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1496-1504.
9. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1050-1058.
10. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II. Measurement of vision disabilities. OptomVis Sci. 1998;75:349-373.
11. Nirmalan PK, John RK, Goshawk VK, et al. The impact of visual impairment on functional vision of children in rural South India: the Kariapatti Pediatric Eye Evaluation Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3442-3445.
12. Nutheti R, Shamanna BR, Krishnaiah S, et al. Perceived visual ability for functional vision performance among persons with low vision in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3458-3465.
13. Stelmack JA, Stelmack TR, Massof RW. Measuring low-vision rehabilitation outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2859-2868.
14. Velozo CA, Lai J-S, Mallinson T, Hauselman E. Maintaining instrument quality while reducing items: application of Rasch analysis to a self-report of visual function. J Outcome Meas. 2000;4:667-680.
15. Valderas JM, Alonso J, Prieto L, Espallargues M, Castells X. Content-based interpretation aids for health-related quality of life measures in clinical practice: an example for the Visual Function Index (VF-14). Qual Life Res. 2004;13:35-44.
16. Franke GH, Esser J, Voigtländer A, Mähner N. Der National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) - Erste Ergebnisse zur psychometrischen Überprüfung eines Verfahrens zur Erfassung der Lebensqualität bei Sehbeeinträchtigten. Z Med Psych. 1998;4:178-184.
17. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000:101.
18. Andrich EB. Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Appl Psychol Meas. 1978;2:581-594.
19. Andrich EB. Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
20. Andrich EB. Scaling attitude items constructed and scored in the Likert tradition. Educ Psychol Meas. 1978;38:665-680.
21. Lincare JM. A User's Guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Chicago: MESA Press; 2002.
22. Fischer GH, Molenaar IW. Rasch Models: Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1995.
23. Ware JE, Kosinki M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, MA: Health Assessment Lab; 1984.
24. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M. SF-36® Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Inc; 2000.
25. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:516-562.
26. Patrick DL, Chiang Y-P. Health outcomes methodology: symposium proceedings. Med Care. 2000;38(suppl 2):2-1-2-210.
27. Ware JE, Bayliss MS. The practical assessment of headache impact using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:887-1159.