Impact of cross-calibration methods on the interpretation of a treatment comparison study using 2 depression scales

Medical Care

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 320-326

  Fischer, Herbert Felix ^a   Wahl, Inka ^b   Fliege, Herbert ^b   Klapp, Burghard F ^a   Rose, Matthias ^b  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

comparability of measures; depression self rating scales; equating; item response theory; psychometrics

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DEPRESSION; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY;

ADULT; CALIBRATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DEPRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84858703312     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822945b4     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Stieglitz RD, Freyberger HJ. Selbstbeurteilungsverfahren. In: Stieglitz RD, Baumann U, Freyberger HJ, eds. Psychodiagnostics in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001: 83-94. [German].
2. Hambleton RK, Jones RW. Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement. 1993;12:38-47.
3. Reise SP, Waller NG. Item response theory and clinical measurement. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2009;5:27-48.
4. Rost J. Was ist aus dem Rasch-Modell geworden? Psychologische Rundschau. 1999;50:140-156.
5. Streiner DL. Measure for Measure: new developments in measurement and item response theory. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55:180-186.
6. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
7. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:981-1002. (Pubitemid 37386627)
8. Fischer HF, Tritt K, Klapp BF, et al. How to compare scores from different depression scales: Equating the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) and the ICD-10-Symptom-Rating (ISR) using Item Response Theory. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. (In press).
9. Dilling H, Mombour W, Schmidt MH. International classification of mental and behavioral disorders. ICD-10, Chapter V(F) Clinical-diagnostic Guidelines. Bern: Huber; 2005. [German].
10. APA-American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
11. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a selfreport version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282:1737-1744. (Pubitemid 29533604)
12. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606-613. (Pubitemid 32823891)
13. Löwe B, Gräfe K, Zipfel S, et al. Diagnosing ICD-10 Depressive Episodes Superior Criterion Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire. Psychother Psychosom. 2004;73:386-390.
14. Löwe B, Kroenke K, Herzog W, et al. Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). J Affect Disord. 2004;81:61-66. (Pubitemid 38759328)
15. Löwe B, Unützer J, Callahan CM, et al. Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9. Med Care. 2004;42:1194-1201. (Pubitemid 39627296)
16. Tritt K, von Heymann F, Zaudig M, et al. Entwicklung des Fragebogens ICD-10-Symptom-Rating (ISR). Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2008; 54:425-434.
17. Fischer HF, Schirmer N, Tritt K, et al. Retest-Reliabilität und Ä nderungssensitivität des ICD-10-Symptom-Rating (ISR) in verschiedenen Stichproben. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2011;61: 162-169.
18. Fischer HF, Tritt K, Klapp BF, et al. Faktorstruktur und psychometrische Eigenschaften des ICD-10-Symptom-Rating (ISR) an Stichproben psychosomatischer Patienten. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2010;60:307-315.
19. Tritt K, von Heymann F, Zaudig M, et al. Das ICD-10-Symptom-Rating (ISR): Zusammenhänge mit der SCL-90-R. Zeitschrift für klinische Diagnostik und Evaluation. 2010;3:22-37.
20. Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Psychotherapie und P. ISR Fragebogen Version. 2.0. 2008. Available at: http://www.iqp-online.de/.
21. Kizilhan JI, Roniger A, Tritt K, et al. Psychometrische überprüfung der türkischen Version des ICD-10-Symptom-Ratings. (In press).
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;346: 307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
23. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346:1085-1087.
24. Chen W-H, Revicki DA, Lai J-S, et al. Linking pain items from two studies onto a common scale using Item Response Theory. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38:615-628.
25. Cohen J. Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:107-112.
26. Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
27. R. Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008.
28. Rizopoulos D. ltm: An R Package for Latent Variable Modeling and Item Response Analysis. J Stat Software. 2006;17:1-25.
29. Canty A, Ripley BD. Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1. 2-43.
30. Bortz J. Statistics for Social Scientists. Berlin: Springer; 1999. [German].
31. Ferrando PJ, Chico E. The external validity of scores based on the two parameter logistic model: some comparisons between IRT and CTT. Psicológica. 2007;28:237-257.
32. MacDonald P, Paunonen SVA. Monte Carlo Comparison of Item and Person Statistics Based on Item Response Theory versus Classical Test Theory. Educ Psychol Meas. 2002;62:921-943. (Pubitemid 36688756)
33. Hays RD, Brown J, Brown LU, et al. Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents' perceptions of their children's dental care. Med Care. 2006;44:S60-S68. (Pubitemid 44632032)
34. Embretson SE. Item Response Theory Models and Spurious Interaction Effects in Factorial ANOVA Designs. Applied Psychol Meas. 1996;20:201-212.
35. Kang S-M, Waller NG. Moderated Multiple Regression, Spurious Interaction Effects, and IRT. Applied Psychol Meas. 2005;29:87-105. (Pubitemid 40306562)