Quality of Life Research

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 121–132

IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary

  • Karon F. Cook
  • Cayla R. Teal
  • Jakob B. Bjorner
  • David Cella
  • Chih-Hung Chang
  • Paul K. Crane
  • Laura E. Gibbons
  • Ron D. Hays
  • Colleen A. McHorney
  • Katja Ocepek-Welikson
  • Anastasia E. Raczek
  • Jeanne A. Teresi
  • Bryce B. Reeve
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9177-5

Cite this article as:
Cook, K.F., Teal, C.R., Bjorner, J.B. et al. Qual Life Res (2007) 16(Suppl 1): 121. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9177-5

Abstract

Background

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.

Objectives

A thorough psychometric and content analysis was conducted of two primary domains within a cancer health-related quality of life (HRQOL) dataset.

Research design

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.

Subjects

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.

Measures

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.

Keywords

Quality of Life Health Status Measurement Outcomes 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karon F. Cook
    • 1
  • Cayla R. Teal
    • 2
  • Jakob B. Bjorner
    • 3
  • David Cella
    • 4
  • Chih-Hung Chang
    • 5
  • Paul K. Crane
    • 6
  • Laura E. Gibbons
    • 6
  • Ron D. Hays
    • 7
  • Colleen A. McHorney
    • 8
  • Katja Ocepek-Welikson
    • 9
    • 10
  • Anastasia E. Raczek
    • 3
  • Jeanne A. Teresi
    • 10
    • 11
  • Bryce B. Reeve
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of Washington School of MedicineWashingtonUSA
  2. 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 ResearchBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  3. 3.QualityMetric Incorporated, LincolnRI and Health Assessment LabWalthamUSA
  4. 4.Center on Outcomes Research and Education, Evanston Northwestern HealthcareNorthwestern University, Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Buehler Center on AgingNorthwestern University, Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  6. 6.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA
  7. 7.Department of Medicine, and RAND Health ProgramUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  8. 8.Outcomes ResearchMerck & Co., Inc.West PointUSA
  9. 9.The New York Quality Improvement OrganizationIPROLake SuccessUSA
  10. 10.New York State Psychiatric Institute and Research DivisionHebrew HomeRiverdaleUSA
  11. 11.Faculty of MedicineColumbia University Stroud CenterRiverdaleUSA
  12. 12.Outcomes Research BranchNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations