A general theoretical framework for interpreting patient-reported outcomes estimated from ordinally scaled item responses

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 409-429

  Massof, Robert W ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

differential item functioning; item response theory; low vision; Rasch analysis; response bias

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EFFECT SIZE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HAWTHORNE EFFECT; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; VISUAL DISORDER; STATISTICAL MODEL; VISION, LOW;

HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; VISION, LOW;

EID: 84907535294     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280213476380     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. McDowell I, Newell C Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2 nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1996 :
2. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002 ; 79: 516-552
3. Massof RW. Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004 ; 11: 381-399
4. Lord FM Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ; 1980:
5. Pesudovs K. Item banking: A generational change in patient-reported outcome measurement. Optom Vis Sci. 2010 ; 87: 285-293
6. Cano SJ, Hobart JC. The problem with health measurement. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011 ; 5: 279-290
7. Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Qual Life Res. 2007 ; 16: 5-18
8. Andrich D Mathematical and Theoretical Systems. Keats JA Taaft R Heath RA Lovibond S, ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers ; 1989: 7-16.
9. Mulcahey MJ, Calhoun CL, Tian F, et al. Evaluation of newly developed item banks for child-reported outcomes of participation following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2012 ;:
10. Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, et al. The activity inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 ; 84: 763-774
11. Rose RM, Teller DY, Rendleman P. Statistical properties of staircase estimates. Percept Psychophys. 1970 ; 8: 199-204
12. Weiss DJ New horizons in testing: latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing. New York: Academic Press ; 1983:
13. Teresi JA, Fleishman JA. Differential item functioning and health assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007 ; 16: 33-42
14. Fayers PM. Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcome assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007 ; 16: 187-194
15. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011 ; 29: 947-953
16. Reeve BR, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, et al. Psychometric evaluation of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007 ; 45: S22 - S31
17. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 119: 1050-1058
18. Stelmack JA, Stelmack TR, Massof RW. Measuring low vision rehabilitation outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 ; 43: 2859-2868
19. Scott IU, Smiddy WE, Schiffman J, et al. Quality of life of low-vision patients and the impact of low-vision services. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 ; 128: 54-62
20. Ryan B, Court H, Margrain TH. Measuring low vision service outcomes: Rasch analysis of the seven-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci. 2008 ; 85: 112-121
21. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation: II. Measurement of vision disabilities. Optom Vis Sci. 1998 ; 75: 349-373
22. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monogr 1969; 34(2,No. 17).
23. Andrich D. A rating formulation for rating response categories. Psychometrika. 1978 ; 43: 561-573
24. Massof RW. Understanding Rasch and item response theory models: Application to the estimation and validation of interval latent trait measures from responses to rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2011 ; 18: 1-19
25. Linacre JM, Wright BD A user's guide to Winsteps Rasch-Model computer program. Chicago: MESA Press ; 2001:
26. Smith RM. The distributional properties of Rasch item fit statistics. Educ Psychol Measurement. 1991 ; 51: 541-565
27. Camilli G. Teacher's corner: Origin of the scaling constant d = 1.7 in item response theory. J Educ Behav Stat. 1994 ; 19: 293-295
28. Bowling SR, Khasawneh MT, Kaewkuekool S, et al. A logistic approximation to the cumulative normal distribution. J Indust Eng Management. 2009 ; 2: 114-127
29. Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil. 2009 ; 23: 362-370
30. Fisher WP, Harvey RF, Taylor P, et al. Rehabits: a common language of functional assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 ; 76: 113-122
31. Massof RW. An interval-scaled scoring algorithm for visual function questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 ; 84: 689-704
32. Stelmack JA, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, et al. Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 ; 45: 3919-3928
33. Stelmack JA, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, et al. Measuring outcomes of vision rehabilitation with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 ; 47: 3253-3261
34. 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 (5 Suppl 39). S53 - S57
35. Cella D, Gershcon R, Lai JS, et al. The future of outcomes measurement: item-banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007 ; 16 (suppl 1). 133-141
36. Stelmack JA, Babcock-Parziale JL, Head DN, et al. Timing and directions for administration of questionnaires affect outcomes measurement. J Rehab Res Dev. 2006 ; 43: 809-816
37. Borsboom D, Scholten AZ. The Rasch Model and conjoint measurement theory from the perspective of psychometrics. Theory Psychology. 2008 ; 18: 111-117