Quality of Life Research

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 913–933 | Cite as

Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™)

  • Jakob B. Bjorner
  • Mark Kosinski
  • John E. Ware Jr
Article

Abstract

Background: Measurement of headache impact is important in clinical trials, case detection, and the clinical monitoring of patients. Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) of headache impact has potential advantages over traditional fixed-length tests in terms of precision, relevance, real-time quality control and flexibility. Objective: To develop an item pool that can be used for a computerized adaptive test of headache impact. Methods: We analyzed responses to four well-known tests of headache impact from a population-based sample of recent headache sufferers (n = 1016). We used confirmatory factor analysis for categorical data and analyses based on item response theory (IRT). Results: In factor analyses, we found very high correlations between the factors hypothesized by the original test constructers, both within and between the original questionnaires. These results suggest that a single score of headache impact is sufficient. We established a pool of 47 items which fitted the generalized partial credit IRT model. By simulating a computerized adaptive health test we showed that an adaptive test of only five items had a very high concordance with the score based on all items and that different worst-case item selection scenarios did not lead to bias. Conclusion: We have established a headache impact item pool that can be used in CAT of headache impact.

Computerized adaptive testing Disability Headache Health status Impact Item response theory Migraine Quality of life Questionnaires Severity Tension headache 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Breslau N, Rasmussen BK. The impact of migraine: Epidemiology, risk factors, and co-morbidities. Neurology 2001; 56: S4–S12.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Simon D, Lipton RB. Epidemiology of tension-type headache. JAMA 1998; 279: 381–383.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart WF, Shechter A, Lipton RB. Migraine heterogeneity. Disability, pain intensity, and attack frequency and duration. Neurology 1994; 44: S24–S39.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316–321.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Goadsby PJ. Headache-related disability in the management of migraine. Neurology 2001; 56: S1–S3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine-current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 257–270.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, et al. Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache 2000; 40: 204–215.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Galer BS, Berzon RA. A new instrument to assess the long-term quality of life effects from migraine: Development and psychometric testing of the MSQOL. Headache 1996; 36: 484–492.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patrick DL, Hurst BC, Hughes J. Further development and testing of the migraine-specific quality of life (MSQOL) measure. Headache 2000; 40: 550–560.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Aggarwal SK, Newman CW. The Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI). Neurology 1994; 44: 837–842.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Norris L, Newman CW. Headache disability inventory (HDI): Short-term test-retest reliability and spouse perceptions. Headache 1995; 35: 534–539.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D, Liberman J, Von Korff M. Validity of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 1999; 79: 291–301.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, Sawyer J. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001; 56: S20–S28.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K, Liberman J, Sawyer J. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 107–114.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, Sawyer J, Lee C, Liberman JN. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000; 88: 41–52.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality Life Res 1995; 4: 293–307.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical studies. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 887–902.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muraki E. Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Appl Psychol Measur 1993; 17: 351–363.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Eignor D, et al. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wainer H, Mislevy RJ. Item Response Theory, Item Calibration, and Proficiency Estimation. In: Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ, Steinberg L, Thissen D (eds), Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000; 61–101.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thissen D, Orlando M. Item Response Theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H (eds), Test Scoring. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum, 2001; 73–140.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Batenhorst A, Cady RK. The responsiveness of headache impact scales scored using 'classical' and 'modern' psychometric methods: A re-analysis of three clinical trials. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 903–912.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ware JE Jr, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000; 38: II73–II82.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. London: Duke University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–69.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muthen BO, Muthen L. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén, 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bollen KA, Barb KH. Pearson's r and coarsely categorized measures. Am Sociol Rev 1981; 46: 232–239.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramsay JO. Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika 1991; 56: 611–630.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramsay JO. TestGraf-A Program for the Graphical Analysis of Multiple Choice Test and Questionnaire Data. Montreal: McGill University, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muraki E. A Generalized Partial Credit Model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. Berlin: Springer, 1997: 153–164.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bock RD, Aitkin M. marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1981; 46: 443–459.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muraki E, Bock RD. Parscale-IRT based Test Scoring and Item Analysis for Graded Open-ended Exercises and Performance Tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 935–952.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HITTM) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 981–1002.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1993.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thissen D, Steinberg L, Wainer H. Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass, 1993: 67–113.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muraki E. Stepwise analysis of differential item functioning based on multiple-group partial credit model. Educ Meas 1999; 36: 217–232.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swaminathan H, Rogers JH. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J Educ Measur 1990; 27: 361–370.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zumbo BD. 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, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991; 78: 691–692.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bock RD, Mislevy RJ. Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Appl Psychol Meas 1982; 6: 431–444.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jhingran P, Davis SM, LaVange LM, Miller DW, Helms RW. MSQ: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 707–717.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236: 157–161.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Sawyer JPC, Blakeborough P, Stewart WF. Migraine: Diagnosis and assessment of disability. Rev Contemp Pharmacotherapy 2000; 11: 63–73.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jobe JB, Tourangeau R, Smith AF. Contributions of survey research to the understanding of memory. Cognitive Psychol 1993; 7: 567–584.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Glas CAW. Modifications indices for the 2-PL and the Nominal Response Model. Psychometrika 1999; 64: 273–294.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zieky M. Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993: 337–347.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. London: Sage Publications, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob B. Bjorner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Kosinski
    • 1
  • John E. Ware Jr
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.QualityMetric IncorporatedLincolnUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Occupational HealthCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Health Assessment LabWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations