A short tutorial on item response theory in rheumatology

Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 581-586

  Siemons, Liseth ^a   Krishnan, Eswar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Applications; Basic principles; Clinical measures; Computerised adaptive testing; Item response theory; Patient reported outcome measures; Rheumatology

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; DIFFERENTIAL ITEM FUNCTIONING; DISEASE ACTIVITY SCALE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FOOT IMPACT SCALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; KERNEL METHOD; LATENT TRAIT THEORY; LEARNING THEORY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OXFORD KNEE SCORE; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; RHEUMATOLOGY; SCIENTIST; SHORT EROSION SCALE; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; THEORY VALIDATION;

HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RHEUMATIC DISEASES; RHEUMATOLOGY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 84904904534     PISSN: 0392856X     EISSN: 1593098X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. FRIES JF: The promise of the future, updated: better outcome tools, greater relevance, more efficient study, lower research costs. Fut Rheumatol 2006; 1: 415-21.
2. FRIES JF, BRUCE B, CELLA D: The promise of PROMIS: Using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23: S53-S7.
3. WARE JE, SHERBOURNE CD: The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-83.
4. CASTREJÓN I, PINCUS T: Patient self-report outcomes to guide a treat-to-target strategy in clinical trials and usual clinical care of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012; 30 (Suppl. 73): S50-5.
5. LORD FM, NOVICK MR: Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA, Addison-Welsley Publishing Company, 1968.
6. NOVICK MR: The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J Math Psychol 1966; 3 1-18.
7. ALLEN MJ, YEN WM: Introduction to Measurement Theory. Long Grove, IL, Waveland Press, 2002.
8. LUCE RD, TUKEY JW: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964; 1: 1-27.
9. HAMBLETON RK, SWAMINATHAN H, ROGERS HJ: Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, 1991.
10. FRIES JF, KRISHNAN E, ROSE M, LINGALA B, BRUCE B: Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13 (R147).
11. TENNANT A, CONAGHAN PG: The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 1358-62.
12. SIEMONS L, ten KLOOSTER PM, TAAL E, GLAS CAW, van de LAAR MAFJ: Modern psychometrics applied in rheumatology - a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 216.
13. REEVE BB, FAYERS P: Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In FAYERS P, HAYS RD (Eds.): Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods of Practice. Oxford, NY, Oxford University Press, 2005: 55-73.
14. ORLANDO M: Critical issues to address when applying item response theory (IRT) models. Conference on Improving Health Outcomes Assessment Based on Modern Measurement Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing. Bethesda, MD, Hyatt, 2004.
15. LEUNG Y-Y, PNG M-E, CONAGHAN P, TENNANT A: A Systematic Literature Review on the Application of Rasch Analysis in Musculoskeletal Disease -- A Special Interest Group Report of OMERACT 11. J Rheumatol 2014; 41: 159-64.
16. BAKER FB: The basics of item response theory. College Park (MD): ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 2001.
17. EMBRETSON SE, REISE SP: Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
18. PREVOO ML, van't HOF MA, KUPER HH, van LEEUWEN MA, van de PUTTE LB, van RIEL PL: Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 44-8.
19. HAYS RD, MORALES LS, REISE SP: Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38: II28-II42.
20. FRIES JF, BRUCE B, BJORNER J, ROSE M: More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65 (Suppl. III): iii16-iii21.
21. CONAGHAN PG, EMERTON M, TENNANT A: Internal construct validity of the Oxford knee scale: Evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Care Res 2007; 57: 1363-7.
22. HELLIWELL P, REAY N, GILWORTH G et al.: Development of a foot impact scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 418-22.
23. DAVIS AM, BADLEY EM, BEATON DE et al.: Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index: results from community and arthroplasty samples. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1076-83.
24. SIEMONS L, ten KLOOSTER PM, TAAL E et al.: Contribution of assessing forefoot joints in early rheumatoid arthritis patients: Insights from item response theory. Arthrit Care Res 2013; 65: 212-9.
25. BODE RK, KLEIN-GITELMAN MS, MILLER ML, LECHMAN TS, PACHMAN LM: Disease activity score for children with juvenile dermatomyositis: Reliability and validity evidence. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: 7-15.
26. WOLFE F, van der HEIJDE DM, LARSEN A: Assessing radiographic status of rheumatoid arthritis: introduction of a short erosion scale. J Rheumatol 2000; 27: 2090-9.
27. TENNANT A, PENTA M, TESIO L et al.: Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42: I37-48.
28. McHORNEY CA, COHEN AS: Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000; 38: II-43-II-59.
29. TENNANT A, P. MS, HAGELL P: Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004; 7: S22-S6.
30. McHORNEY CA: Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 743-50.
31. REVICKI DA, CELLA DF: Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 595-600.
32. RASCH G: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut; 1960.
33. LORD FM: A theory of test scores. (Psychometric Monograph No. 7). Iowa City, IA, Psychometric Society, 1952.
34. ANDRICH D: A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978; 43: 561-73.
35. MASTERS GN: A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982; 47: 149-74.
36. MURAKI E: A generalized partial credit model: Application of the EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement 1992; 16: 159-76.
37. SAMEJIMA F: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monographs 1969; 34: No. 17.
38. MURAKI E: Fitting a polytomous item response model to Likert-type data. Applied Psychological Measurement 1990; 14: 59-71.
39. BOCK RD: Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika 1972; 37: 29-51.