Measurement and control of bias in patient reported outcomes using multidimensional item response theory

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Dowling, N Maritza ^a   Bolt, Daniel M ^b   Deng, Sien ^b   Li, Chenxi ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Extreme response style; Measurement invariance; Multidimensional item response theory models; Patient reported outcomes (PROs); Test validity

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ALZHEIMER DISEASE; HUMAN; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SELF REPORT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ALGORITHMS; ALZHEIMER DISEASE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84971229236     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0161-z     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug safety reporting. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:865-9.
2. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. N Engl J Med. 2013; 362:814-22.
3. Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 1950; 6:1094-105.
4. Basch E, Torda P, Adams K. Standards for patient-reported outcome-based performance measures. J Am Med Assoc. 2013; 310:139-40.
5. 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; 23:53-7.
6. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, et al.ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013; 4:1889-905.
7. PROMIS Instrument Development and Psychometric Evaluation Scientific Standards. 2012. Available at: http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/PROMISStandards-Vers2.0-Final.pdf.
8. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JB. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J Marketing Res. 2001; 38:143-56.
9. Greenleaf EA. Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. J Market Res. 1992; 29:176-8.
10. Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of Personality and Social Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press: 1991. p. 17-59.
11. Clarke I. Extreme response style in cross-cultural research. Int Market Rev. 2001; 18:301-24.
12. Kieruj ND, Moors G. Variations in response style behavior by response scale format in attitude research. Int J Public Opin Res. 2010; 22:320-42.
13. Wetzel E, Lüdtke O, Zettler I, Bohnke JR. The stability of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years. Assessment. 2015; 23:279-91.
14. van Vaerenbergh Y, Thomas TD. Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. Int J Public Opin Res. 2013; 25:195-217.
15. Greenleaf EA. Measuring extreme response style. Public Opin Q. 1992; 56:328-51.
16. Bolt DM, Johnson TR. Addressing score bias and differential item functioning due to individual differences in response style. Appl Psychol Meas. 2009; 33:335-52.
17. Thissen-Roe A, Thissen D. A two-decision model for responses to likert-type items. J Educ Behav Stat. 2013; 38:522-47.
18. Hamilton DC. Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychol Bull. 1968; 69:192-203.
19. Plieger T, Montag C, Felten A, Reuter M. The serotonin transporter polymorphism (5-httlpr) and personality: response style as a new endophenotype for anxiety. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014; 17:851-8.
20. Meisenberg G, Williams A. Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education?Pers Individ Diff. 2008; 44:1539-50.
21. Azocar F, Areán P, Miranda J, Muñoz RF. Differential item functioning in a spanish translation of the beck depression inventory. J Clin Psychol. 2001; 57:355-65.
22. Bachman J. G, O'Malley P. M. Response styles revisited: racial/ethnic and gender differences in extreme responding. 2010. Retrieved from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/occpapers/occ72.pdf.
23. Hamamura T, Heine SJ, Paulhus DL. Cultural differences in response styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Pers Ind Diff. 2008; 44:932-42.
24. Harzing AW. Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. Int J Cross Cultural Manage. 2006; 6:243-66.
25. Marin G, Gamba RJ, Marin BV. Extreme response style and acquiescence among hispanics:the role of acculturation and education. J Cross-Cultural Psychol. 1992; 23:498-509.
26. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale: Routledge; 2012.
27. McHorney CA, Fleishman JA. Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Medical Care. 2006; 44:205-10.
28. Teresi JA, Ramirez M, Lai JS, Silver S. Occurrences and sources of differential item functioning (dif) in patient-reported outcome measures: Description of dif methods, and review of measures of depression, quality of life and general health. Psychol Sci Q. 2008; 50:538.
29. Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, et al. Analysis of differential item functioning in the depression item bank from the patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS): An item response theory approachn. Psychol Sci Q. 2009; 51:148-80.
30. Varni JW, Thissen D, Stucky BD, et al.PROMIS parent proxy report scales for children ages 5-7 years: An item response theory analysis of differential item functioning across age groups. J Cross-Cultural Psychol. 2014; 23:349-61.
31. Wetzel E, Böhnke J, Carstensen CH, Ziegler M, Ostendorf F. Do individual response styles matter? assessing differential item functioning for men and women in the NEO-PI-R. J Ind Diff. 2013; 34:69-81.
32. Cronbach LJ. Response sets and test validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 1946; 6:75-494.
33. Cronbach LJ. Further evidence of response set test design. Educ Psychol Meas. 1950; 10:3-31.
34. Böhnke JR, Croudace TJ. Factors of psychological distress: clinical value, measurement substance, and methodological artefacts. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015; 50:515-24.
35. Elliott MN, Haviland AM, Kanouse D, Hambarsoomian K, Hays R. Adjusting for subgroup differences in extreme response tendency in ratings of health care: impact on disparity estimates. Health Services Res. 2009; 44:542-61.
36. Peterson TJ, Feldman G, Harley R, Fresco DM, Graves L, Holmes A, Bogdan R, Papakostas G, Bohn L, Lury R. Extreme response style in recurrent and chronically depressed patients: Change with antidepressant administration and stability during continuation treatment. J Consult Clinical Psychol. 2007; 75:145-53.
37. Weech-Maldonado R, Elliott MN, Oluwole A, Schiller K, Hays R. Survey response style and differential use of CHAPS rating scales by hispanics. Med Care. 2008; 46:963-8.
38. Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI-R Professional Manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992. Psychological Assessment Resources.
39. Moors G. Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Qual Quantity. 2008; 42:779-94.
40. Bolt DM, Newton JR. Multiscale measurement of extreme response style. Educ Psychol Meas. 2011; 71:814-33.
41. Moors G. Diagnosing response style behavior by means of a latent-class factor approach: Sociodemographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination reexamined. Qual Quantity. 2003; 37:277-302.
42. Rost J, Carstensen CH, von Davier M. Applying the mixed rasch model to personality questionnaires In: Rost J, Langeheine R, editors. Applications of Latent Trait and Latent Class Models in the Social Sciences. Munster, Germany: Waxmann: 1997. p. 324-32.
43. van Rosmalen J, van Herk H, Groenen PJF. Identifying response styles: A latent-class bilinear multinomial logit model. J Market Res. 2010; 47:157-72.
44. Moors G. Facts and artifacts in the comparison of attitudes among ethnic minorities. a multigroup latent class structure model with adjustment for response style behavior. Eur Sociol Rev. 2004; 20:303-20.
45. Rost J. Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Appl Psychol Meas. 1990; 14:271-82.
46. De Jong MG, Steenkamp J, Fox J, Baumgartner H. Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: A global investigation. J Market Res. 2008; 45:104-15.
47. Morren M, Gelissen J, Vermunt JK. Dealing with extreme response style in cross-cultural research: A restricted latent class factor analysis approach. Sociol Methodol. 2011; 41:13-47.
48. Johnson TR, Bolt DM. On the use of factor-analytic multinomial logit item response models to account for individual differences in response style. J Educ Behav Stat. 2010; 35:92-114.
49. Böckenholt U. Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17:665-78.
50. Zettler I, Lang J, Hülsheger UR, Hilbig BE. Dissociating indifferent, directional, and extreme responding in personality data: Applying the three-process model to self-and observer reports. J Pers. 2015. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12172.
51. Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Technical guide for Latent GOLD 5.0: Basic, advanced, and syntax. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.; 2013.
52. Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Latent GOLD 5.0 upgrade manual. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc; 2013.
53. Bennett DA, Schneider JA, Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS. Overview and findings from the religious orders study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012; 9:628-45.
54. Wilson RS, Beckett LA, Barnes LL, Schneider JA, Bach J, Evans DA, Bennett DA. Individual differences in rates of change in cognitive abilities of older persons. Psychol Aging. 2002; 17:179-93.
55. McCrae RR, Kurtz JE, Yamagata S, Terracciano A. Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2011; 15:28-50.
56. Aldinger M, Stopsack M, Ulrich I, Appel K, Reinelt E, Wolff S, Grabe HJ, Lang S, Barnow S. Neuroticism developmental courses-implications for depression, anxiety and everyday emotional experience; a prospective study from adolescence to young adulthood. BMC Psychiatry. 2014; 14:210.
57. Goodwin RD, Stein MB. Peptic ulcer disease and neuroticism in the united states adult population. Psychother Psychosom. 2003; 72:10-5.
58. Kendler KS, Gatz M, Gardner CO, Pedersen NL. Personality and major depression: a swedish longitudinal, population-based twin study. Arch Gen Psychiat. 2006; 63:1113-20.
59. Muraki E. Ia generalized partial credit model: Application of an em algorithm. ETS Res Report Ser. 1992; 1:1-30.
60. Li Y, Baser R. Using R and WinBUGS to fit a generalized partial credit model for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcomes assessments. Stat Med. 2012; 31:2010-26.
61. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978; 6:461-4.
62. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automatic Cont. 1974; 19:716-23.
63. Terracciano A, Sutin AR, An Y, O'Brien R, Zonderman AB, Resnick SM. Personality and risk of alzheimer's disease: New data and meta-analysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2014; 10:179-86.
64. Cox D. Analysis of Survival Data. London: CRC Press; 1984.
65. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
66. Dignam JJ, Kocherginsky MN. Choice and interpretation of statistical tests used when competing risks are present. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26:4027-34.
67. Blanchin M, Hardouin JB, Neel TL, Kubis G, Blanchard C, Mirallié E, Sébille V. Comparison of ctt and rasch-based approaches for the analysis of longitudinal patient reported outcomes. Stat Med. 2011; 30(8):825-38.
68. Bock E, Hardouin JB, Blanchin M, Le Neel T, Kubis G, Bonnaud-Antignac A, Dantan E, Sébille V. Rasch-family models are more valuable than score based approaches for analysing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with missing data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2013. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0962280213515570.
69. Alonso J, Bartlett SJ, Rose M, Aaronson NK, Chaplin JE, Efficace F, Leplège A, Lu A, Tulsky DS, Raat H, Ravens-Sieberer U, Revicki D, Terwee CB, Valderas JM, Cella D, Forrest CB. The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (promis®;) initiative. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11:1-5.
70. Janssens A, Rogers M, Coon JT, Allen K, Green C, Jenkinson C, Tennant A, Logan S, Morris C. A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part ii: evaluation of psychometric performance of english-language versions in a general population. Value Health. 2015; 18:334-45.
71. Watt T, Barbesino G, Bjorner JB, Bonnema SJ, Bukvic B, Drummond R, Groenvold M, Hegedüs L, Kantzer V, Lasch KE, Mishra A, Netea-Maier R, Ekker M, Paunovic I, Quinn TJ, Rasmussen K, Russell A, Sabaretnam M, Smit J, Torring O, Zivaljevic V, Feldt-Rasmussen U. Cross-cultural validity of the thyroid-specific quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measure, thypro. Qual Life Res. 2005; 24:769-80.
72. Johnson T, Kulesa P, Cho Y, Shavitt S. The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. J Cross-cultural Psychol. 2005; 36:264-77.
73. Lu Y, Bolt DM. Examining the attitude-achievement paradox in pisa using a multilevel multidimensional irt model for extreme response style. Large-scale Assessments Educ. 2015; 3:1-18.
74. Falk CF, Cai L. A flexible full-information approach to the modeling of response styles. Psychological Methods. 2015. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/met0000059.
75. Bolt DM, Lu Y, Kim JS. Measurement and control of response styles using anchoring vignettes: A model-based approach. Psychol Methods. 2014; 19:528-41.
76. Strobl C, Kopf J, Zeileis A. Rasch trees: A new method for detecting differential item functioning in the rasch model. Psychometrika. 2015; 80(2):289-316.