Development of symptom assessments utilising item response theory and computer-adaptive testing-A practical method based on a systematic review

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 47-67

  Walker, Jochen ^a   Böhnke, Jan R ^b   Cerny, Thomas ^a   Strasser, Florian ^a  

^a Kantonsspital St Gallen Division of Oncology Haematology   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRIER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computer adaptive testing; Item response theory; Oncology; Patient reported outcomes

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY MEASURE FOR POST ACUTE CARE; ADVANCED CANCER; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY; CALIBRATION; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; DEPRESSION; DIABETES MELLITUS; EORTC QLQ C30; FATIGUE; FLEX SF; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HEADACHE IMPACT TEST; HUMAN; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; LOWER EXTREMITY FUNCTIONAL SCALE; LUMBAR SPINE FUNCTIONAL STATUS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASUREMENT; PEDIATRIC EVALUATION OF DISABILITY INVENTORY; PEDIATRIC SYMPTOM CHECKLIST; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYMPTOM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THEORY;

EID: 83055187151     PISSN: 10408428     EISSN: 18790461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.03.007     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Ingham J, Portenoy R. Cachexia-anorexia in cancer patients. Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 158-71.
2. Radbruch L, Sabatowski R, Elsner F, Everts J, Mendoza T, Cleeland C. Validation of the German version of the brief fatigue inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;25:449-58.
3. Johnston M, Pollard B, Hennessey P. Construct validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale with clinical populations. J Psychosom Res 2000;48:579-84.
4. Stroemgren AS, Goldschmidt D, Groenvold M, et al. Self-assessment in cancer patients referred to palliative care: a study of feasibility and symptom epidemiology. Cancer 2002;94:512-20.
5. Nekolaichuk CL, Bruera E. Assessing hope at the end of life: validation of an experience of hope scale in advanced cancer patients. Palliat Support Care 2004;2:243-53.
6. Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W, Galietta M, et al. The schedule of attitudes toward hastened death: measuring desire for death in terminally ill cancer patients. Cancer 2000;88:2868-75.
7. Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, et al. The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:55-64.
8. Echteld MA, Deliens L, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Klein M, van der Wal G. EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: the new standard in the assessment of health-related quality of life in advanced cancer? Palliat Med 2006;20:1-2.
9. Lai JS, Cella D, Dineen K, et al. An item bank was created to improve the measurement of cancer-related fatigue. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:190-7.
10. Lai JS, Dineen K, Reeve BB, et al. An item response theory-based pain item bank can enhance measurement precision. J Pain Symptom Manage 2005;30:278-88.
11. Gardner W, Shear K, Kelleher KJ, et al. Computerized adaptive measurement of depression: a simulation study. BMC Psychiatry 2004;4:13.
12. Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 2007;87:385-98.
13. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock 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:S3-11.
14. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007;45:S22-31.
15. Strasser F, Binswanger J, Cerny T, Kesselring A. Fighting a losing battle: eating-related distress of men with advanced cancer and their female partners. A mixed-methods study. Palliat Med 2007;21:129-37.
16. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Br Med J 2005;331:1064-5.
17. Ware JE, Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Bjorner JB. Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychology 2005;50:71-8.
18. Haley SM, Andres PL, Coster WJ, Kosinski M, Ni P, Jette AM. Shortform activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:649-60.
19. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, Kosinski M, Ni P. Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:661-6.
20. Schwartz C, Welch G, Santiago-Kelley P, Bode R, Sun X. Computerized adaptive testing of diabetes impact: a feasibility study of Hispanics and non-Hispanics in an active clinic population. Qual Life Res 2006;15:1503-18.
21. Siebens H, Andres PL, Pengsheng N, Coster WJ, Haley SM. Measuring physical function in patients with complex medical and postsurgical conditions: a computer adaptive approach. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:741-8.
22. Haley SM, Ni P, Fragala-Pinkham MA, Skrinar AM, Corzo D. A computer adaptive testing approach for assessing physical functioning in children and adolescents. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005;47:113-20.
23. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, Teal CR, Crane PK. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:290-8.
24. Crane PK, Hart DL, Gibbons LE, Cook KF. A 37-item shoulder functional status item pool had negligible differential item functioning. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:478-84.
25. Cook KF, Roddey TS, Gartsman GM, Olson SL. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Flexilevel Scale of Shoulder Function. Med Care 2003;41:823-35.
26. Gardner W, Kelleher KJ, Pajer KA. Multidimensional adaptive testing for mental health problems in primary care. Med Care 2002;40:812-23.
27. Ware Jr JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 2003;12:935-52.
28. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware Jr JE. Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Qual Life Res 2003;12:913-33.
29. Andres PL, Black-Schaffer RM, Ni P, Haley SM. Computer adaptive testing: a strategy for monitoring stroke rehabilitation across settings. Top Stroke Rehabil 2004;11:33-9.
30. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care 2004;42:I49-61.
31. Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N, Fayers P, Sprangers M, Bjorner JB. Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of the EORTC QLQ-C30: basic developments and evaluations. Qual Life Res 2006;15:315-29.
32. Haley SM, Ni P, Hambleton RK, Slavin MD, Jette AM. Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1174-82.
33. Haley SM, Raczek AE, Coster WJ, Dumas HM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Assessing mobility in children using a computer adaptive testing version of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:932-9.
34. Dijkers MP. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:384-93.
35. Cook KF, Roddey TS, O'Malley KJ, Gartsman GM. Development of a Flexilevel Scale for use with computer-adaptive testing for assessing shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:90S-4S.
36. Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, Bjorner JB, Klapp BF, Rose M. Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res 2005;14:2277-91.
37. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, StratfordPW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:629-38.
38. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Werneke MW, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:947-56.
39. Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware Jr JE, Sullivan E, Straus WL. An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testingwas efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:715-23.
40. Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, Bode RK, Heinemann AW. 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. Qual Life Res 2003;12:485-501.
41. Walter OB, Becker J, Bjorner JB, Fliege H, Klapp BF, Rose M. Development and evaluation of a computer adaptive test for 'Anxiety' (Anxiety-CAT). Qual Life Res 2007;16(Suppl. 1):143-55.
42. Walter OB, Becker J, Fliege H, et al. Entwicklungsschritte für einen computeradaptiven Test zur Erfassung von Angst (A-CAT1). Diagnostica 2005;51:88-100.
43. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:17-33.
44. Haley SM, Siebens H, Coster WJ, et al. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1033-42.
45. Cook KF, Teal CR, Bjorner JB, et al. IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary. Qual Life Res 2007;16(Suppl. 1):121-32.
46. Cook KF, O'Malley KJ, Roddey TS. Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag? Health Serv Res 2005;40:1694-711.
47. FACIT Development +Validation References. http://www.facit.org/validity/validationarticles.aspx. Ref Type: Electronic Citation; 2007.
48. Smith AB, Rush R, Velikova G, et al. The initial development of an item bank to assess and screen for psychological distress in cancer patients. Psychooncology 2007;16:724-32.
49. Likert R. A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychology 1932;140:1-55.
50. Linacre J. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans 1994;7:328.
51. Fayers PM. Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res 2007;16(Suppl. 1):187-94.
52. Holman R, Weisscher N, Glas CAW, Dijkgraaf MGW, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ. The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score (ALDS) item bank: item response theory analysis in a mixed patient population. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:83.
53. Reeve BB, Fayers P. Applying item response theory modelling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In: Fayers Q, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 55-73.
54. Holman R, Lindeboom R, Glas CAW, Vermeulen R. Constructing an item bank using item response theory: the AMC linear disability score project. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 2003;4:19-33.
55. van der LindenW, Hambleton RK. Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer; 1997.
56. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage; 1991.
57. McCutcheon AL. Latent class analysis. Sage; 1987.
58. Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 2007;16(Suppl. 1):19-31.
59. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press; 1980.
60. Birnbaum A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In: Lord FM, Novick MR, editors. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesely; 1968. p. 397-479.
61. Baker FB. The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation; 2001.
62. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov B, Csaki F, editors. 2nd International symposium on information theory. 1973. p. 267-381.
63. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978;6:461-4.
64. Glas CAW. Tests of fit for polytomous Rasch models. In: Fischer GH, editor. Rasch models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. Springer; 1995. p. 325-52.
65. von Davier M. Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse categorical data: results of a Monte Carlo study. Methods Psychol Res Online 1997:29-48.
66. Glas CAW. Differential item functioning depending on general covariates. In: Boomsma A, van Duijn M, Snijders T, editors. Essays on item response theory. Springer; 2001. p. 131-48.
67. Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Narasimhalu K, Lai JS, Cella D. Rapid detection of differential item functioning in assessments of health-related quality of life: the functional assessment of cancer therapy. Qual Life Res 2007;16:101-14.
68. Wainer H. Computerized adaptive testing: a primer, 2nd ed.; 2000 [Ref Type: Generic].
69. Glas CAW. Item calibration and parameter drift. In: van der LindenW, Glas CAW, editors. Computerized adaptive testing: theory and practice. Kluwer; 2003. p. 183-200.
70. Thissen D, Reeve BB, Bjorner JB, Chang CH. Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales. Qual Life Res 2007;16(Suppl. 1):109-19.
71. vander Linden W, Glas CAW. Cross-validating item parameter estimation in adaptive testing. In: Boomsma A, van Duijn M, Snijders T, editors. Essays on item response theory. Springer; 2001. p. 205-19.
72. General overview and comparison of programs (http://www.assess.com/). http://www.assess.com/. Ref Type: Electronic Citation; 13-1-2007.
73. Mislevy R, Stocking M. A consumer's guide to LOGIST and BILOG. Applied Psychological Measurement 1989;13:57-75
74. Mislevy RJ, Bock RD. BILOG: maximum likelihood item analysis and test scoring with logistic models for binary items [Computer program]. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 1990. Ref Type: Computer Program.
75. Thissen D. MULTILOG user's guide - version 6 [Computer software and manual]. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 1991. Ref Type: Computer Program.
76. du Toit M. IRT from SSI. Lincoln, IL.: Scientific Software International Inc.; 2003.
77. Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N, et al. Item response theory was used to shorten EORTC QLQ-C30 scales for use in palliative care. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:36-44.