...
首页> 外文期刊>Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research >Using Classical Test Theory, Item Response Theory, and Rasch Measurement Theory to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Comparison of Worked Examples
【24h】

Using Classical Test Theory, Item Response Theory, and Rasch Measurement Theory to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Comparison of Worked Examples

机译:使用经典测试理论,项目反应理论和Rasch测量理论评估患者报告的结果指标:工作实例的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To provide comparisons and a worked example of item and scale-level evaluations based on three psychometric methods used in patient-reported outcome development classical test theory (CTT), item response theory (IRT), and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) in an analysis of the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ-25). Methods: Baseline VFQ-25 data from 240 participants with diabetic macular edema from a randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial were used to evaluate the VFQ at the total score level. CTT, RMT, and IRT evaluations were conducted, and results were assessed in a head-to-head comparison. Results: Results were similar across the three methods, with IRT and RMT providing more detailed diagnostic information on how to improve the scale CTT led to the identification of two problematic items that threaten the validity of the overall scale score, sets of redundant items, and skewed response categories. IRT and RMT additionally identified poor fit for one item, many locally dependent items, poor targeting, and disordering of over half the response categories. Conclusions: Selection of a psychometric approach depends on many factors. Researchers should justify their evaluation method and consider the intended audience. If the instrument is being developed for descriptive purposes and on a restricted budget, a cursory examination of the CTT-based psychometric properties may be all that is possible. In a high stakes situation, such as the development of a patient reported outcome instrument for consideration in pharmaceutical labeling, however, a thorough psychometric evaluation including IRT or RMT should be considered, with final item-level decisions made on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative results. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier inc. on behalf of international Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).
机译:目的:提供基于三种心理测量方法的项目和量表评估的比较和工作实例,这些方法用于患者报告的结局发展经典测试理论(CTT),项目反应理论(IRT)和Rasch测量理论(RMT)。国家眼科研究所视觉功能问卷(VFQ-25)的分析。方法:使用来自随机,双掩蔽,多中心临床试验的240名糖尿病性黄斑水肿参与者的基线VFQ-25数据评估总得分水平的VFQ。进行了CTT,RMT和IRT评估,并进行了正面对比评估。结果:这三种方法的结果相似,IRT和RMT提供了有关如何提高量表CTT的更详细的诊断信息,从而确定了两个有问题的项目,这些问题威胁到总分表的有效性,重复项目集和偏斜的响应类别。此外,IRT和RMT还确定了一件商品的适用性差,许多当地依赖的商品,针对性差以及超过一半的响应类别混乱。结论:心理测验方法的选择取决于许多因素。研究人员应证明其评估方法合理,并考虑目标受众。如果出于描述性目的和有限的预算而开发该工具,则可能仅凭空检查基于CTT的心理测量特性即可。在高风险的情况下,例如开发用于药物标签的患者报告的结局工具,但是,应考虑进行全面的心理评估,包括IRT或RMT,最终项目级别的决定应基于定量和定量。定性的结果。 (C)2015由Elsevier inc。代表国际药物经济学和结果研究学会(ISPOR)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号