Selecting optimal screening items for delirium: an application of item response theory

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Edward R Marcantonio⁵  Long H Ngo⁴  James L Rudolph²  Paul K Crane³  Douglas Tommet¹  Sharon K Inouye¹  Richard N Jones¹  Frances M Yang¹ 

[1] Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Gerontology, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, 1200 Centre Street, Boston, MA 02131, USA;Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women′s Hospital, Division of Aging, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02151, USA;Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Box 359780, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA;Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, 330 Brookline Ave; CO-230, Boston, MA, 02215, USA;Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Divisions of General Medicine and Primary Care and Gerontology, 330 Brookline Ave, CO-216, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

关键词: Item bank;    Item response theory;    Factor analysis;    Dimensionality;    Delirium screening;    Confusion assessment method;   

Others  :  1126249
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-8

 received in 2012-06-08, accepted in 2012-12-27,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Delirium (acute confusion), is a common, morbid, and costly complication of acute illness in older adults. Yet, researchers and clinicians lack short, efficient, and sensitive case identification tools for delirium. Though the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is the most widely used algorithm for delirium, the existing assessments that operationalize the CAM algorithm may be too long or complicated for routine clinical use. Item response theory (IRT) models help facilitate the development of short screening tools for use in clinical applications or research studies. This study utilizes IRT to identify a reduced set of optimally performing screening indicators for the four CAM features of delirium.

Methods

Older adults were screened for enrollment in a large scale delirium study conducted in Boston-area post-acute facilities (n = 4,598). Trained interviewers conducted a structured delirium assessment that culminated in rating the presence or absence of four features of delirium based on the CAM. A pool of 135 indicators from established cognitive testing and delirium assessment tools were assigned by an expert panel into two indicator sets per CAM feature representing (a) direct interview questions, including cognitive testing, and (b) interviewer observations. We used IRT models to identify the best items to screen for each feature of delirium.

Results

We identified 10 dimensions and chose up to five indicators per dimension. Preference was given to items with peak psychometric information in the latent trait region relevant for screening for delirium. The final set of 48 indicators, derived from 39 items, maintains fidelity to clinical constructs of delirium and maximizes psychometric information relevant for screening.

Conclusions

We identified optimal indicators from a large item pool to screen for delirium. The selected indicators maintain fidelity to clinical constructs of delirium while maximizing psychometric information important for screening. This reduced item set facilitates development of short screening tools suitable for use in clinical applications or research studies. This study represents the first step in the establishment of an item bank for delirium screening with potential questions for clinical researchers to select from and tailor according to their research objectives.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Yang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Inouye SK, Bogardus ST Jr, Charpentier PA, Leo-Summers L, Acampora D, Holford TR, Cooney LM Jr: A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. N Engl J Med 1999, 340:669-676.
• [2]Marcantonio E, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, Resnick NM: Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001, 49:516-522.
• [3]Francis J: Delirium in older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992, 40:829-838.
• [4]Leslie DL, Marcantonio ER, Zhang Y, Leo-Summers L, Inouye SK: One-year health care costs associated with delirium in the elderly population. Arch Intern Med 2008, 168:27-32.
• [5]Inouye S: Delirium in older persons. N Engl J Med 2006, 354:1157-1165.
• [6]American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (third edition) (DSM-III). 3rd edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 1980.
• [7]American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (third edition - revised) (DSM-III-R). 3rd edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 1987.
• [8]American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) (DSM-IV). 4th edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
• [9]Tucker LR, Lewis C: A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38:1-10.
• [10]World Health Organization: The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: diagnostic criteria for research. World Health Organization; 1993.
• [11]Liptzin B: What criteria should be used for the diagnosis of delirium? Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999, 10:364.
• [12]Laurila JV, Pitkala KH, Strandberg TE, Tilvis RS: The impact of different diagnostic criteria on prevalence rates for delirium. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2003, 16:156-162.
• [13]Cole MG, Dendukuri N, McCusker J, Han L: An empirical study of different diagnostic criteria for delirium among elderly medical inpatients. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosciences 2003, 15:200-207.
• [14]Adamis D, Sharma N, Whelan PJP, Macdonald AJD: Delirium scales: a review of current evidence. Aging & mental health 2010, 14:543-555.
• [15]Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI: Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 1990, 113:941-948.
• [16]Wei LA, Fearing MA, Sternberg EJ, Inouye SK: The Confusion Assessment Method: a systematic review of current usage. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008, 56:823-830.
• [17]Inouye SK: The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM): Training Manual and Coding Guide. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Medicine; 2003.
• [18]Simon S, Bergmann M, Jones RN, Murphy K, Orav E, Marcantonio E: Reliability of a structured assessment for non-clinicians to detect delirium among new admissions to post-acute care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2006, 7:412-415.
• [19]Lord F: Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1980.
• [20]Dregan A, Grieve A, van Staa T, Gulliford MC: Potential application of item-response theory to interpretation of medical codes in electronic patient records. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:168. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]van Nispen RMA, Knol DL, Langelaan M, van Rens GHMB: Re-evaluating a vision-related quality of life questionnaire with item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:125. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Vogels AG, Jacobusse GW, Reijneveld SA: An accurate and efficient identification of children with psychosocial problems by means of computerized adaptive testing. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:111. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Edelen MO, Reeve BB: Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Res 2007, 16:5-18.
• [24]van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK: Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer; 1996.
• [25]Goetz C, Ecosse E, Rat AC, Pouchot J, Coste J, Guillemin F: Measurement properties of the osteoarthritis of knee and hip quality of life OAKHQOL questionnaire: an item response theory analysis. Rheumatology 2011, 50:500-505.
• [26]Mislevy RJ: Recent developments in the factor analysis of categorical variables. J Educ Behav Stat 1986, 11:3-31.
• [27]Glockner-Rist A, Hoijtink H: The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model 2003, 10:544-565.
• [28]Takane Y, de Leeuw J: On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika 1987, 52:393-408.
• [29]Reckase MD: Multidimensional item response theory. Springer; 2009.
• [30]Birnbaum A: Some latent trait models (chapter 17). In Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Edited by Lord F, Novick M. Addison-Wesley; 1968:397-424.
• [31]Christoffersson A: Factor analysis of dichotomized variables. Psychometrika 1975, 40:5-32.
• [32]Muthén B: Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables. Psychometrika 1978, 43:551-560.
• [33]McDonald RP: Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999.
• [34]Yang JS, Hansen M, Cai L: Characterizing sources of uncertainty in Item Response Theory scale scores. Educ Psychol Meas 2011.
• [35]Camilli G: Teacher's corner: Origin of the scaling constant D=1.7 in item response theory. J Educ Behav Stat 1994, 19:293.
• [36]Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, Thissen D, Revicki DA, Weiss DJ, Hambleton RK: Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical care 2007, 45:S22-S31.
• [37]Marcantonio ER, Bergmann MA, Kiely DK, Orav EJ, Jones RN: Randomized trial of a delirium abatement program for postacute skilled nursing facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010, 58:1019-1026.
• [38]Kiely DK, Bergmann MA, Murphy KM, Jones RN, Orav EJ, Marcantonio ER: Delirium among newly admitted postacute facility patients: prevalence, symptoms, and severity. J Gerontology Series A: Biological Sci Med Sci 2003, 58:M441-M445.
• [39]Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatric Res 1975, 12:189-198.
• [40]Wechsler D: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised. New York: Psychological Corp; 1981.
• [41]Albert MS, Levkoff SE, Reilly C, Liptzin B, Pilgrim D, Cleary PD, Evans D, Rowe JW: The delirium symptom interview: an interview for the detection of delirium symptoms in hospitalized patients. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1992, 5:14-21.
• [42]Huang L-W, Inouye SK, Jones RN, Fong TG, Rudolph JL, O’Connor MG, Metzger ED, Crane PK, Marcantonio ER: Identifying Indicators of Important Diagnostic Features of Delirium. J Am Geriatrics Soc 2012, 60:1044-1050.
• [43]Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus Users Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012.
• [44]Buja A, Eyuboglu N: Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivar Behav Res 1992, 27:509.
• [45]Gibbons RD, Bock RD, Hedeker D, Weiss DJ, Segawa E, Bhaumik DK, Kupfer DJ, Frank E, Grochocinski VJ, Stover A: Full-Information Item Bifactor Analysis of Graded Response Data. Appl Psychol Meas 2007, 31:4.
• [46]Horn JL: A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965, 30:179-185.
• [47]Brown TA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Publications; 2006.
• [48]Bentler PM: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990, 107:238-246.
• [49]Browne M, Cudeck R: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models. Edited by Bollen K, Long J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1993:136-162.
• [50]Embretson SE, Reise SP: Item Response Theory for psychologists. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
• [51]Muthén BO, du Toit S, Spisic D: Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Version 5 edition. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA; 1997.
• [52]Beauducel A, Herzberg P: On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Model 2006, 13:186-203.
• [53]Baker FB, Kim S-H: Item Response Theory: Parameter Estimation Techniques. 2nd edition. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2004.
• [54]Thissen D, Wainer H: Test scoring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.
• [55]Marsh HW, Hau KT, Balla JR, Grayson D: Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivar Behav Res 1998, 33:181-220.
• [56]Little TD, Lindenberger U, Nesselroade JR: On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When "good" indicators are bad and "bad" indicators are good. Psychol Methods 1999, 4:192-211.
• [57]Hu L, Bentler P: Fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecifications. Psychol Methods 1998, 4:424-453.
• [58]Blessed G, Tomlinson B, Roth M: The association between quantitative measures of dementia and of senile change in the cerebral grey matter of elderly subjects. Br J Psychiatry 1968, 114:797-811.