Development of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning dimension
- 350 Downloads
Computerized adaptive test (CAT) methods, based on item response theory (IRT), enable a patient-reported outcome instrument to be adapted to the individual patient while maintaining direct comparability of scores. The EORTC Quality of Life Group is developing a CAT version of the widely used EORTC QLQ-C30. We present the development and psychometric validation of the item pool for the first of the scales, physical functioning (PF).
Initial developments (including literature search and patient and expert evaluations) resulted in 56 candidate items. Responses to these items were collected from 1,176 patients with cancer from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The items were evaluated with regard to psychometric properties.
Evaluations showed that 31 of the items could be included in a unidimensional IRT model with acceptable fit and good content coverage, although the pool may lack items at the upper extreme (good PF). There were several findings of significant differential item functioning (DIF). However, the DIF findings appeared to have little impact on the PF estimation.
We have established an item pool for CAT measurement of PF and believe that this CAT instrument will clearly improve the EORTC measurement of PF.
KeywordsComputerized adaptive test EORTC QLQ-C30 Item banking Item response theory Physical functioning Quality of life
The study was funded by grants from the EORTC Quality of Life Group. National Taiwan University, grant National Science Council, Taiwan, No. 95-2314-B-002-266-MY2, 97-2314-B-002-020-MY3.
- 1.Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (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(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.Google Scholar
- 5.Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 6.Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Chie, W.-C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., et al. (2010). Development of computerised adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 dimensions—General approach and initial results for physical functioning. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 1352–1358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- 8.van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 11.Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1996). PARSCALE—IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
- 12.Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2002). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
- 14.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 15.Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 19.Muraki, E. (1997). A generalized partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153–168). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 20.Masters, G. N., & Wright, B. D. (1997). The partial credit model. In W. V. D. Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 21.Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. V. D. Linden, & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100).Google Scholar
- 23.Hanson, B. A. (2009). IRT command language (ICL) program http://www.b-a-h.com/software/irt/icl. Accessed June 2009.
- 24.Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological, 39, 1–22.Google Scholar
- 29.Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. A. (1999). Using statistical and judgmental reviews to identify and interpret translation differential item functioning. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 353–376.Google Scholar
- 33.SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS/STAT ® 9.1 user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- 35.Revicki D. A., Chen, W. H., Harnam, N., Cook, K. F., Amtmann, D., Callahan, L. F., et al. (2009). Development and psychometric analysis of the PROMIS pain behavior item bank. Pain.Google Scholar
- 36.Helbostad, J. L., Holen, J. C., Jordhoy, M. S., Ringdal, G. I., Oldervoll, L., & Kaasa, S. (2009). A first step in the development of an international self-report instrument for physical functioning in palliative cancer care: A systematic literature review and an expert opinion evaluation study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37(2), 196–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supports the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar