Item response theory and its applications for cancer outcomes measurement

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511545856.021

21 - Item response theory and its applications for cancer outcomes measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2009

Steven P. Reise Ph.D.

Edited by

Joseph Lipscomb ,

Carolyn C. Gotay and

Claire Snyder

Show author details

Steven P. Reise Ph.D.: Affiliation:
Professor University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Joseph Lipscomb: Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Carolyn C. Gotay: Affiliation:
Cancer Research Center, Hawaii
Claire Snyder: Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Each year new health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires are developed or revised from previous measures in the hope of obtaining instruments that are more reliable, valid within the study population, and sensitive to a patient's change in health status. Also, it is important that the measures provide interpretable scores that accurately characterize a patient's HRQOL. While several quality instruments have emerged in cancer outcomes research, we presently lack the ability to crosswalk scores from one instrument to another so that researchers are able to combine or compare results from multiple studies when different instruments are used. Developing these psychometrically strong measures requires analytical methods that will allow researchers to choose the best set of informative questions to match study objectives and to crosswalk scores from one assessment to another, despite use of different sets of questions.

There has been growing interest in learning how applications of item response theory (IRT) modeling can be used to respond to these analytical needs of the cancer outcomes measurement field. This interest is generated by the ability of IRT models to analyze item and scale performance within a study population; to detect biased items that may occur when translating an instrument from one language to another, or when respondents from two different groups hold culturally different meanings for the item content; to link two or more instruments on a common metric and thus facilitate crosswalking of scores; and to create item banks that serve as a foundation for computerized adaptive assessment.

Type: Chapter
Information: Outcomes Assessment in Cancer
Measures, Methods and Applications
, pp. 425 - 444

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511545856.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

McHorney, C. A., Cohen, A. S. (2000). Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status itemsMedical Care 38:43–59CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scalesMedical Care 38:73–83CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Medical Outcomes Trust (1991). Medical Outcomes Trust: Improving Medical Outcomes from the Patient's Point of View. Boston, MA: Medical Outcomes Trust

van der Linden, W. J., Hambleton, R. K. (ed.) (1997). Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York: Springer

Hambleton, this volume, Chapter 22

Wilson, this volume, Chapter 23

McHorney, Cook, this volume, Invited Paper B

Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S. (2001). The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of lifeAnnals of Medicine 33:350–7CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0.Health Economics 2:217–27CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ware, J. E., Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), conceptual framework and item selectionMedical Care 30:473–83CrossRef Google Scholar

Morales, L. S., Cunningham, W. E., Brown, J. A.et al. (1999). Are Latinos less satisfied with communication by health care providers?Journal of General Internal Medicine 14:409–17CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bock, R. D. (1997). A brief history of item response theoryEducational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16:21–33CrossRef Google Scholar

Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Wright, B. D. (1997). A history of social science measurementEducational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16:33–45CrossRef Google Scholar

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Denmarks Paedagogiske Institute

Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). A unidimensional latent trait model for continuous item responsesMultivariate Behavioral Research 29:223–36CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scoresPsychometric Monograph, No. 17CrossRef Google Scholar

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoringPsychometrika 47:149–74CrossRef Google Scholar

Masters, G. N., Wright, B. D. (1996). The partial credit model. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, ed. W. J. van der Linden, R. K. Hambleton. New York: Springer

Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integersApplied Psychological Measurement 2:581–94CrossRef Google Scholar

Muraki, E., Bock, R. D. (1997). PARSCALE: IRT Based Test Scoring and Item Analysis for Graded Open-ended Exercises and Performance Tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software

Cooke, D. J., Michie, C. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Hare psychopathy checklist — revisedPsychological Assessment 9:3–14CrossRef Google Scholar

Drasgow, F., Parsons, C. (1983). Applications of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional dataApplied Psychological Measurement 7:189–99CrossRef Google Scholar

Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implicationsJournal of Educational Statistics 4:207–30CrossRef Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and itemsApplied Psychological Measurement 9:139–64CrossRef Google Scholar

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G. (2001). Dichotomous IRT models. In Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis, ed. F. Drasgow, Schmitt, pp. 88–122. Williamsburg, VA: Jossey-Bass

McLeod, L. D., Swygert, K. A., Thissen, D. (2001). Factor analysis for items scored in two categories. In Test Scoring, ed. D. Thissen, H. Wainer, pp. 141–86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Waller, N. G. (2000). Micro FACT 2.0 User's Manual. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation

McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and itemsBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 34:100–17CrossRef Google Scholar

Chen, W., Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theoryJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 22:265–89CrossRef Google Scholar

Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic modelApplied Psychological Measurement 8:125–45CrossRef Google Scholar

Embretson, S. E., Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Baker, F. B. (1992). Item Response Theory Parameter Estimation Techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc

Kingston, N., Dorans, N. (1985). The analysis of item-ability regressions: an exploratory IRT model-fit toolApplied Psychological Measurement 9:281–8CrossRef Google Scholar

McKinley, R., Mills, C. (1985). A comparison of several goodness-of-fit statisticsApplied Psychological Measurement 9:49–57CrossRef Google Scholar

Hambleton, R. K., Robin, F., Xing, D. (2000). Item response models for the analysis of educational and psychological test data. In H. E. A. Tinsley, S. D. Brown (ed.), Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, pp. 553–85. San Diego, CA: Academic PressCrossRef

Orlando, M., Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory modelsApplied Psychological Measurement 24:50–64CrossRef Google Scholar

Rogers, H., Hattie, J. (1987). A Monte Carlo investigation of several person and item-fit statistics for item response modelsApplied Psychological Measurement 11:47–57CrossRef Google Scholar

Mislevy, R. J., Bock, R. D. (1989). BILOG 3: Item Analysis and Test Scoring with Binary Logistic Models. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software

Meijer, R. R., Sijtsma, K. (1995). Detection of aberrant item score patterns: a review of recent developmentsApplied Measurement in Education 8:261–72CrossRef Google Scholar

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G. (1993). Traitedness and the assessment of response pattern scalabilityJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:143–51CrossRef Google Scholar

Zickar, M. J., Drasgow, F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurementApplied Psychological Measurement 20:71–88CrossRef Google Scholar

Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment 8:341–9CrossRef Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of testsPsychometrika 16:297–334CrossRef Google Scholar

Dodd, B. G., DeAyala, R. J. (1994). Item information as a function of threshold values in the rating scale model. In Objective Measurement: Theory and Practice, ed. M. Wilson, Vol. 2, pp. 201–317. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Flaugher, R. (2000). Item pools. In Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer (2nd Edition), ed. H. Wainer, N. J. Dorans, D. Eignor et al., pp. 37–60. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Orlando, M., Sherbourne, C. D., Thissen, D. (2000). Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurementPsychological Assessment 12:354–9CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Vale, D. C. (1986). Linking item parameters onto a common scaleApplied Psychological Measurement 10:133–44CrossRef Google Scholar

Wainer, H., Eignor, D. (2000). Caveats, pitfalls, and unexpected consequences of implementing large-scale computerized testing. In Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer (2nd Edition), H. Wainer, N. J. Dorans, D. Eignor et al., pp. 37–60. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Weiss, D. J. (1985). Adaptive testing by computerJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:774–89CrossRef Google Scholar

Drasgow, F., Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (1999). Innovations in Computerized Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Eignor, D. et al. (2000). Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer (2nd Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

van der Linden, W. J., Glas, C. A. W. (2000). Computerized Aadaptive Testing: Theory and Practice. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Bjorner, J. B., Kreiner, S., Ware, J. E.et al. (1998). Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51:1189–202CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gandek, B., Ware, J. E. Jr., Neil, K. A.et al. (1998). Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: results from the IQOLA projectJournal of Clinical Epidemiology 51:1149–58CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Millsap, R. E., Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement biasApplied Psychological Measurement 17:297–334CrossRef Google Scholar

Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J. et al. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT Analysis and Test Maintenance for Binary Items. Chicago: Scientific Software

Kim, S., Cohen, A. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response model with the likelihood ratio testApplied Psychological Measurement 22:345–55CrossRef Google Scholar

Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curvesPsychometrika 53:495–502CrossRef Google Scholar

Reise, S. P., Smith, L., Furr, R. M. (2001). Invariance on the NEO PI-R Neuroticism ScaleMultivariate Behavioral Research 36:83–110CrossRef Google Scholar

Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., Gerrard, M. (1986). Beyond group-mean differences: the concept of item biasPsychological Bulletin 99:118–28CrossRef Google Scholar

Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariancePsychological Bulletin 114:352–66CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Holland, P. W., Wainer, H. (1993). Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Yen, W. M. (1986). The choice of scale for educational measurement: an IRT perspectiveJournal of Educational Measurement 23:299–325CrossRef Google Scholar

Thissen, D., Orlando, M. (2001). Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In Test Scoring, ed. D. Thissen, H. Wainer, pp. 73–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Cella, D., Chang, C. (2000). A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessmentMedical Care 9:66–72Google Scholar

Santor, D. A., Ramsay, J. O. (1998). Progress in the technology of measurement: applications of item response modelsPsychological Assessment 10:345–59CrossRef Google Scholar

Embretson, S. E. (1996). Item response theory models and spurious interaction effects in factorial ANOVA designsApplied Psychological Measurement 20:201–12CrossRef Google Scholar