IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In June 2004, the National Cancer Institute and the Drug Information Association co-sponsored the conference, “Improving the Measurement of Health Outcomes through the Applications of Item Response Theory (IRT) Modeling: Exploration of Item Banks and Computer-Adaptive Assessment.” A component of the conference was presentation of a psychometric and content analysis of a secondary dataset.
A thorough psychometric and content analysis was conducted of two primary domains within a cancer health-related quality of life (HRQOL) dataset.
HRQOL scales were evaluated using factor analysis for categorical data, IRT modeling, and differential item functioning analyses. In addition, computerized adaptive administration of HRQOL item banks was simulated, and various IRT models were applied and compared.
The original data were collected as part of the NCI-funded Quality of Life Evaluation in Oncology (Q-Score) Project. A total of 1,714 patients with cancer or HIV/AIDS were recruited from 5 clinical sites.
Items from 4 HRQOL instruments were evaluated: Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System–Short Form, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey.
Results and conclusions
Four lessons learned from the project are discussed: the importance of good developmental item banks, the ambiguity of model fit results, the limits of our knowledge regarding the practical implications of model misfit, and the importance in the measurement of HRQOL of construct definition. With respect to these lessons, areas for future research are suggested. The feasibility of developing item banks for broad definitions of health is discussed.
- Chang, C.-H., & Cella, D. (1997). Equating health-related quality of life instruments in applied oncology settings. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: States of the Art Reviews, 11, 397–406.
- Ganz, P. A., Schag, C. A., Lee, J. J., & Sim, M. S. (1992). The CARES: A generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 1, 19–29. CrossRef
- Schag, C. A., Ganz, P. A., & Heinrich, R. L. (1991). CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-short form (CARES-SF). A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument. Cancer, 68, 1406–1413. CrossRef
- Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., & de Haes, J. C. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. CrossRef
- Cella, D. F., & Bonomi, A. E. (1995). Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology (Williston Park), 9, 47–60.
- Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., Brannon, J., & et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11, 570–579.
- Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2, 217–227. CrossRef
- Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. CrossRef
- Nandakumar, R. (2004). Traditional dimensionality versus essential dimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99–117. CrossRef
- Smith, E. V., Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205–231.
- Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2001). Mplus User’s Guide. Version 2. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In: R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. CrossRef
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
- Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
- McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
- Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. CrossRef
- Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–173. CrossRef
- Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM-algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159. CrossRef
- Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17.
- Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1997). PARSCALE 3: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded items and rating scales. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
- Linacre, J. M. (2002). WINSTEPS: Rasch-model computer program. Version 3.36. Chicago: MESA Press.
- Verhelst, N. D., & Glas, C. A. W. (1995). The one parameter-logistic model. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 331–352. CrossRef
- Stone, C. A. (2000). Monte Carlo based null distribution for an alternative goodness-of-fit test statistic in IRT models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(1), 58–75. CrossRef
- Stone, C. A. (2003). Empirical power and type I error rates for an IRT fit statistic that considers the precision of ability estimates. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 566–586. CrossRef
- Glas, C. A. W. (1999). Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika, 64, 273–294. CrossRef
- Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50–64. CrossRef
- Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.
- Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
- Smith, R. M., & Suh, K. K. (2003). Rasch fit statistics as a test of the invariance of item parameter estimates. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 153–163.
- Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Klee, M. C., & Kreiner, S. (1995). Test for item bias in a quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 805–816. CrossRef
- Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361–370. CrossRef
- Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
- Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
- Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG TM User’s Guide multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Inc.
- Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Version 2.0b.
- Collins, W. C., Raju, N. S., & Edwards, J. E. (2000). Assessing differential functioning in a satisfaction scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 85, 451–461.
- Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W. J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368. CrossRef
- STATA. (2004). College Station, TX: StataCorp LP
- Crane, P. K., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2003). DIFdetect. Seattle, WA: University of Sashington.
- Box, G., & Draper, N. (1987). Empirical model building and response surfaces. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
- Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. London: Duke University Press.
- Gardner, W., Kelleher, K. J., & Pajer, K. A. (2002). Multidimensional adaptive testing for mental health problems in primary care. Medical Care, 40, 812–823. CrossRef
- Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N., Fayers, P., Sprangers, M., & Bjorner, J. B. (2006). Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of the EORTC QLQ-C30: Basic developments and evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15, 315–329. CrossRef
- IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary
Quality of Life Research
Volume 16, Issue 1 Supplement, pp 121-132
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Quality of Life
- Health Status
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
- 2. Department of Medicine, Houston Center for Quality of Care & Utilization Studies, Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Center of Excellence and Section of Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- 3. QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln, RI and Health Assessment Lab, Waltham, MA, USA
- 4. Center on Outcomes Research and Education, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- 5. Buehler Center on Aging, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, WA, Seattle, USA
- 7. Department of Medicine, and RAND Health Program, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- 8. Outcomes Research, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA, USA
- 10. New York State Psychiatric Institute and Research Division, Hebrew Home, Riverdale, NY, USA
- 9. The New York Quality Improvement Organization, IPRO, Lake Success, NY, USA
- 11. Faculty of Medicine, Columbia University Stroud Center, Riverdale, NY, USA
- 12. Outcomes Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA