An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement

Patient

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 23-35

  Nguyen, Tam H ^a   Han, Hae Ra ^b   Kim, Miyong T ^c   Chan, Kitty S ^d  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CULTURAL BIAS; DEPRESSION; HEALTH LITERACY; HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE HEALTH LITERACY SCALE; HUMAN; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE 9; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; THEORY;

ASIAN AMERICANS; HEALTH LITERACY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MENTAL HEALTH; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE;

EID: 84899087098     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-013-0041-0     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Brook RH, Ware JE, Jr., Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL, Donald CA, Rogers WH, et al. Overview of adult health measures fielded in Rand's health insurance study. Med Care. 1979;17(7 Suppl):iii-x, 1-131.
2. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(6):535-52. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.09.003. (Pubitemid 39592859)
3. Darzi L. High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review final report. 2008. Contract No.: ISBN 978-0-10-174322-8.
4. Selby JV. The patient-centered outcomes research institute: a 2013 agenda for "research done differently". Popul Health Manag. 2013;16(2):69-70. doi:10.1089/pop.2013.1621.
5. Speight J, Barendse SM. FDA guidance on patient reported outcomes. BMJ. 2010;340:c2921. doi:10.1136/bmj.c2921bmj.c2921.
6. Gulliksen H. Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley; 1950.
7. Hambleton RK. Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II60-5.
8. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill; 1967.
9. Embretson SE. The new rules of measurement. Psychol Assess. 1996;8(4):341-9.
10. Hambleton RK, Jones RW. Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement. 1993. p. 38-47.
11. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers WH. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1991.
12. Brennan RL, editor. Educational measurement. 4th ed. Westport: Praeger Publishers; 2006.
13. van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997.
14. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993.
15. Reeve BB. An introduction to modern measurement theory. National Cancer Institute. 2002.
16. Baker F. The basis of item response theory. 2nd ed. College Park: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation; 2001.
17. Lord FM. The relation of test score to the trait underlying the test. Educ Psychol Meas. 1953;13:517-48.
18. Birnbaum A. Part 5: 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: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
19. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: MESA; 1960.
20. Reeve BB, Fayers P. Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In: Fayers P, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods of practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 55-73.
21. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
22. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom Monogr. 1969;34(17 Suppl):386-415.
23. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-73.
24. Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149-74.
25. Muraki E. A generalized partial credit model: application of an EM algorithm. Appl Psychol Meas. 1992;17:159-76.
26. Bock RD. Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika. 1972;37:29-51.
27. Reckase M. Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implications. J Educ Stat. 1979;4:207-30.
28. Hattie J. Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9:139-64.
29. Stout W. A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika. 1987;52:589-617.
30. Gessaroli M, DeChamplain A. Using an approximate Chi-square statistic to test the number of dimensions underlying the responses to a set of items. J Educ Meas. 1996;33:157-79. (Pubitemid 126173952)
31. Reise SP. Item response theory and its applications for cancer outcomes measurement. In: Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C, editors. Outcomes assessment in cancer: measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 425-44.
32. Smith AB, Rush R, Fallowfield LJ, Velikova G, Sharpe M. Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:33. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-33.
33. Smith RM, Plackner C. The family approach to assessing fit in Rasch measurement. J Appl Meas. 2009;10(4):424-37.
34. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Baum Associates; 2001.
35. Wright BD, Mead J. BICAL: calibrating items and scales with the Rasch model (Research Memorandum No. 23). Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education, Statistical Laboratory; 1977.
36. Orlando M, Thissen D. Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Meas. 2000;24(1):50-64.
37. McLeod LD, Swygert KA, Thissen D. Factor analysis for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H, editors. Test scoring. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum & Associates; 2001.
38. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(6):671-84 (pii: 0895-4356(94)90215-1).
39. Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(Suppl 1):5-18. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0. (Pubitemid 47036924)
40. Looveer J, Mulligan J. The efficacy of link items in the construction of a numeracy achievement scale - from kindergarten to year 6. J Appl Meas. 2009;10:247-65.
41. Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;7(4):328.
42. Tsutakawa RK, Johnson JC. The effect of uncertainty of item parameter estimation on ability estimates. Psychometrika. 1990;55:371-90.
43. Orlando M, Marshall GN. Differential item functioning in a Spanish translation of the PTSD checklist: detection and evaluation of impact. Psychol Assess. 2002;14(1):50-9. (Pubitemid 34211769)
44. Thissen D, Steinberg L, Gerrard M. Beyond group mean differences: the concept of item bias. Psychol Bull. 1986;99(1):118-28.
45. Kim MT, Song HJ, Han HR, Song Y, Nam S, Nguyen TH, et al. Development and validation of the high blood pressure-focused health literacy scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(2):165-70. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.09.005.
46. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737-44 (pii: joc90770).
47. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-13 (pii: jgi01114).
48. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. 1995;57:289-300.
49. Chen WH, Thissen D. Local dependance indices for item pairs using item response theory. J Educ Behav Stat. 1997;22:265-89. (Pubitemid 127472138)
50. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(7):711-7 (pii: 0895-4356(96)00016-9).
51. Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II73-82.
52. Cella D, Nowinski C, Peterman A, Victorson D, Miller D, Lai JS, et al. The neurology quality-of-life measurement initiative. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10 Suppl):S28-36. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.025.
53. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, 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(5 Suppl 1):S3-11. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.
54. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult selfreported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179-94. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010. 04.011.
55. Salsman JM, Victorson D, Choi SW, Peterman AH, Heinemann AW, Nowinski C, et al. Development and validation of the positive affect and well-being scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system. Qual Life Res. 2013. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0382-0.
56. Muraki E, Bock RD. PARSCALE 4 for windows: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded items and rating scales [Computer software]. Skokie: Scientific Software International, Inc.; 2003.
57. Thissen D, Chen WH, Bock RD. MULTILOG 7 for windows: multiple-category item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer software]. Skokie: Scientific Software International, Inc.; 2003.
58. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2011.
59. Cai L, Thissen D, du Toit S. IRTPRO 2.1 for Windows: Item response theory for patient-reported outcomes [Computer software]. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.; 2011.
60. Zimowski MF, Muraki E, Mislevy RJ, Bock RD. BILOG-MG 3 for windows: multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items [Computer software]. Skokie: Scientific Software International, Inc; 2003.
61. Houts CR, Cai L. flexMIRT version 1.88: a numerical engine for multilevel item factor analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Seattle: Vector Psychometric Group; 2012.
62. RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd. RUMM2030 [Computer software]. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd; 2012.
63. Linacre JM. Winsteps version 3.80.0 [Computer Software]. Beaverton: Winsteps.com; 2013.
64. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2013.
65. Rizopoulos D. ltm: an R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. J Stat Softw. 2006;17:1-25.
66. Mair P, Hatzinger R, Maier MJ. eRm: extended rasch modeling. R package version 0.15-1. 2012. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=eRm.
67. Childs RA, Chen WH. Obtaining comparable item parameter estimates in MULTILOG and PARSCALE for two polytomous IRT models. Appl Psychol Meas. 1999;23:371-9.
68. Paek I, Han KT. IRTPRO 2.1 for windows (item response theory for patient-reported outcomes). Appl Psychol Meas. 2013;37(3):242-52.