Skip to main content

Item response theory approaches to harmonization and research synthesis

Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology volume 14, pages 213–231 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

The need to harmonize different outcome metrics is a common problem in research synthesis and economic evaluation of health interventions and technology. The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of multidimensional item response theory (IRT) to equate different scales which purport to measure the same construct at the item level. We provide an overview of multidimensional IRT in general and the bi-factor model which is particularly relevant for applications in this area. We show how both the underlying true scores of two or more scales that are intended to measure the same latent variable can be equated and how the item responses from one scale can be used to predict the item responses for a scale that was not administered but are necessary for the purpose of economic evaluations. As an example, we show that a multidimensional IRT model predicts well both the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ-5D preference index from SF-12 data which cannot be directly used to perform an economic evaluation. Results based on multidimensional IRT performed well compared to traditional regression methods in this area. A general framework for harmonization of research instruments based on multidimensional IRT is described.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Calculating the U.S. Population-based EQ-5D™ Index Score. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/resources/rice/EQ5Dscore.html (2005). Accessed 1 June 2013

  • Bock, R.D., Aitkin, M.: Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 46, 443–459 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, R.D., Gibbons, R.D.: Factor analysis of categorical item responses. In: Nering, M., Ostini, R. (eds.) Handbook of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models: Development and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Florence (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R., Rabin, R., Charro, F.D.: The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective: Evidence from the EuroQol BIO MED Research Programme. Springer, New York (2003)

  • Chuang, L.-H., Kind, P.: Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics 27(6), 491–505 (2009). doi:10.2165/00019053-200927060-00005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan, N., Manning, W.G., Morris, C.N., Newhouse, J.P.: A comparison of alternative models for the demand for medical care. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 1(2), 115–126 (1983). doi:10.2307/1391852

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, J.A.: Demographic and Clinical Variations in Health Status. http://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/mr15/mr15.pdf (2005). Accessed 1 Nov 2013

  • Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J., Jia, H.: Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24(3), 247–254 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, R.D., Hedeker, D.: Full-information item bifactor analysis. Psychometrika 57, 423–436 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, R.D., Bock, R.D., Hedeker, D., Weiss, D., Bhaumik, D.K., Kupfer, D., Frank, E., Grochocinski, V., Stover, A.: Full-information item bifactor analysis of graded response data. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 31, 4–19 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A.M., Rivero-Arias, O., Clarke, P.M.: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med. Decis. Mak. 26(1), 18–29 (2006). doi:10.1177/0272989X05284108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R.D.: Longitudinal Data Analysis. Wiley, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, K.J., Swineford, F.: The bifactor method. Psychometrika 2, 41–54 (1937)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K.G.: A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 34, 183–202 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, W.F., Fleishman, J.A.: Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24(2), 160–169 (2004). doi:10.1177/0272989X04264015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le, Q.A., Doctor, J.N.: Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: an empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Med. Care 49(5), 451–460 (2011). doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318207e9a8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Fu, A.Z.: Some methodological issues with the analysis of preference-based EQ-5D index score. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methods 9(3), 162–176 (2009). doi:10.1007/s10742-009-0053-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longworth, L., Rowen, D.: Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health 16(1), 202–210 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.010

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B.O.: Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika 54, 557–585 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D.B.: Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63, 581–592 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samejima, F.: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom. Monogr. Suppl. 35, 139–139 (1969)

  • Shaw, J.W., Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J.: US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med. Care 43(3), 203–220 (2005)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 26(4), 401–409 (2006). doi:10.1177/0272989X06290496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, G.W., Thomas, W.H., Sackett, D.L.: A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv. Res. 7(2), 118–133 (1972)

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L.R.: An inter-battery method of factor analysis. Psychometrika 23, 111–136 (1958)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware Jr, J., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D.: A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med. Care 34(3), 220–233 (1996)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NIMH grant MH66302 (RDG) and AHRQ Grants 1U18HS016973 (RDG) and T32HS000084 (MCP).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Departments of Medicine and Health Studies, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 2007 Office W260, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Robert D. Gibbons, Marcelo Coca Perraillon & Jong Bae Kim

Authors
  1. Robert D. Gibbons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Coca Perraillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jong Bae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert D. Gibbons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gibbons, R.D., Perraillon, M.C. & Kim, J.B. Item response theory approaches to harmonization and research synthesis. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 14, 213–231 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0125-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0125-x

Keywords

  • Harmonization
  • Item response theory
  • Research synthesis
  • Cost effectiveness
  • QALY