Applying item response theory to enhance health outcomes assessment

Lipscomb, J., Donaldson, M. S., & Hiatt, R. A. (2004). Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. JNCI Monographs, 33, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gotay, C. C., Lipscomb, J., & Snyder, C. F. (2005). Reflections on COMWG findings and moving to the next phase. In: J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay & C. F. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications (pp. 568–583). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. QOL Research, 11, 193–205.Google Scholar

Fries, J. (2005, April). The promise of PROMIS: Reducing sample sizes for clinical trials. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, England.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In: P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12, 913–933.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

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(2), 397–406.Google Scholar

Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45, S3–S11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar