Applying multilevel item response theory to vision-related quality of life in Dutch visually impaired elderly

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 84, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 710-720

  Van Nispen, Ruth M A ^a,b   Knol, Dirk L ^a,b   Langelaan, Maaike ^a,b,c   De Boer, Michiel R ^d   Terwee, Caroline B ^b   Van Rens, Ger H M B ^a,b,e  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Visio National Foundation for the Blind   (Netherlands)

^d VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e ELKERLIEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Elderly; Graded response model; Item parameter drift; Item response theory; Multilevel analysis; Rating scale model; Vision related quality of life; Visual impairment

Indexed keywords

HANDICAPPED PERSONS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; PATIENT REHABILITATION; STATISTICAL METHODS;

GRADED RESPONSE MODELS; ITEM PARAMETER DRIFTS; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY (IRT); MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS; POLYCHORIC CORRELATIONS; RATING SCALE MODELS; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

VISION AIDS;

AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELDERLY CARE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION CENTER; VISION; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; VISION, LOW; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 34547914078     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31813375b8     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Massof RW, Rubin GS. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol 2001;45:531-48.
2. Stelmack J. Quality of life of low-vision patients and outcomes of low-vision rehabilitation. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:335-42.
3. Hinds A, Sinclair A, Park J, Suttie A, Paterson H, Macdonald M. Impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the quality of life of low vision patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:1391-6.
4. McCabe P, Nason F, Demers Turco P, Friedman D, Seddon JM. Evaluating the effectiveness of a vision rehabilitation intervention using an objective and subjective measure of functional performance. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000;7:259-70.
5. Reeves BC, Harper RA, Russell WB. Enhanced low vision rehabilitation for people with age related macular degeneration: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:1443-9.
6. Wolffsohn JS, Cochrane AL. Design of the low vision quality-of-life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:793-802.
7. de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24:257-73.
8. de Boer MR, Twisk J, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, de Vet HC, van Rens GH. Outcomes of low-vision services using optometric and multidisciplinary approaches: a non-randomized comparison. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006;26:535-44.
9. Frost NA, Sparrow JM, Durant JS, Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Brookes ST. Development of a questionnaire for measurement of vision-related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1998;5:185-210.
10. de Boer MR, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH. Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:1260-8.
11. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. I. Basic concepts. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72:725-36.
12. Stelmack JA, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, Moran D, Massof RW. Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:3919-28.
13. Misajon R, Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Barton J, Peacock S, Iezzi A, Keeffe J. Vision and quality of life: the development of a utility measure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4007-15.
14. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II. Measurement of vision disabilities. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:349-73.
15. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000;38:II28-42.
16. Twisk JWR. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
17. te Marvelde JM, Glas CAW, van Landeghem G, van Damme J. Application of multidimensional item response theory models to longitudinal data. Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66:5-34.
18. Rijmen F, Tuerlinckx F, De Boeck P, Kuppens P. A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory. Psychol Methods 2003;8:185-205.
19. Pastor DA, Beretvas SN. Longitudinal Rasch modeling in the context of psychotherapy outcomes assessment. Appl Psychol Meas 2006;30:100-20.
20. De Boer MR, Langelaan M, Jansonius NM, Van Rens GH. Evidence-based guidelines on the referral of visually impaired persons to low vision services. Eur J Ophthalmol 2005;15:400-6.
21. de Boer MR, Terwee CB, de Vet HC, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH. Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1. Qual Life Res 2006;15:233-48.
22. Nijkamp MD, Dolders MG, de Brabander J, van den Borne B, Hendrikse F, Nuijts RM. Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1832-9.
23. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide: The Comprehensive Modeling Program for Applied Researchers. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 1998.
24. van Schoor NM, Knol DL, Glas CA, Ostelo RW, Leplege A, Cooper C, Johnell O, Lips P. Development of the Qualeffo-31, an osteoporosis-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:543-51.
25. Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.; 1968.
26. Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S. Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal, and Structural Equation Models. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 2004.
27. Flora DB, Finkel EJ, Foshee VA. Higher order factor structure of a self-control test: evidence from confirmatory factor analysis with polychoric correlations. Educ Psychol Meas 2003;63:112-27.
28. Takane Y, de Leeuw J. On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika 1987;52:393-408.
29. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A. Maximum likelihood estimation of generalized linear models with covariate measurement error. Stata J 2001;1:1-26. Available at: http://www.gllamm.org/gllamerr.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2007.
30. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A. GLLAMM Manual (October 2004). U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, 2004. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/ucbbio/1160.html. Accessed May 18, 2007.
31. Skrondal A, Rabe-Hesketh S. Generalized linear mixed models for nominal data. Available at: http://www.gllamm.org/jsm2003.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2007.
32. Samejima F. Acceleration model in the heterogeneous case of the general graded response model. Psychometrika 1995;60:549-72.
33. Samejima F. Homogeneous case of the continuous response model. Psychometrika 1973;38:203-19.
34. Samejima F. Estimation of Latent Ability Using Response Pattern of Graded Scores: Psychometric Monograph No. 17. Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society; 1969.
35. Muraki E. Fitting a polytomous item response model to Likert-type data. Appl Psychol Meas 1990;14:59-71.
36. Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;78:350-65.
37. Mellenbergh GJ. Conceptual notes on models for discrete polytomous item responses. Appl Psychol Meas 1995;19:91-100.
38. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum; 2001.
39. Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas 1999;3:103-22.
40. Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Stevens MJ, Elliott DB. The Refractive Status and Vision Profile: evaluation of psychometric properties and comparison of Rasch and summated Likert-scaling. Vision Res 2006;46:1375-83.
41. Burggraaff MC, van Nispen RMA, de Boer MR, van Rens GHMB. Optometric and multidisciplinary approaches in prescribing low vision aids - revised. Vis Impair Res 2006;8:17-24.
42. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston: Kluwer; 1985.
43. Wells CS, Subkoviak MJ, Serlin RC. The effect of item parameter drift on examinee ability estimates. Appl Psychol Meas 2002;26:77-87.
44. Murphy CC, Greiner K, Plskova J, Frost NA, Forrester JV, Dick AD. Validity of using vision-related quality of life as a treatment end point in intermediate and posterior uveitis. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:154-6.
45. Tuerlinckx F, Rijmen F, Molenberghs G, Verbeke G, Briggs D, van den Noortgate W, Meulders M, de Boeck P. Estimation and software. In: de Boeck P, Wilson M, eds. Explanatory Item Response Models. A Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004:343-75.
46. Maydeu-Olivares A. Further empirical results on parametric versus non-parametric IRT modeling of Likert-type personality data. Multivariate Behav Res 2005;40:261-79.