Item response theory analysis of cognitive tests in people with dementia: a systematic review

BMC Psychiatry

Susan D Shenkin³  John M Starr³  Elizabeth J Austin²  Jason M Doherty²  Sarah McGrory¹ 

[1] Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, UK;Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK;Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

关键词: Systematic review;    MMSE;    Alzheimer disease;    Cognition;    Psychometrics;    Dementia;    Item response theory;   

Others  :  1123766
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-14-47

 received in 2013-04-16, accepted in 2014-02-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Performance on psychometric tests is key to diagnosis and monitoring treatment of dementia. Results are often reported as a total score, but there is additional information in individual items of tests which vary in their difficulty and discriminatory value. Item difficulty refers to an ability level at which the probability of responding correctly is 50%. Discrimination is an index of how well an item can differentiate between patients of varying levels of severity. Item response theory (IRT) analysis can use this information to examine and refine measures of cognitive functioning. This systematic review aimed to identify all published literature which had applied IRT to instruments assessing global cognitive function in people with dementia.

Methods

A systematic review was carried out across Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINHAL articles. Search terms relating to IRT and dementia were combined to find all IRT analyses of global functioning scales of dementia.

Results

Of 384 articles identified four studies met inclusion criteria including a total of 2,920 people with dementia from six centers in two countries. These studies used three cognitive tests (MMSE, ADAS-Cog, BIMCT) and three IRT methods (Item Characteristic Curve analysis, Samejima’s graded response model, the 2-Parameter Model). Memory items were most difficult. Naming the date in the MMSE and memory items, specifically word recall, of the ADAS-cog were most discriminatory.

Conclusions

Four published studies were identified which used IRT on global cognitive tests in people with dementia. This technique increased the interpretative power of the cognitive scales, and could be used to provide clinicians with key items from a larger test battery which would have high predictive value. There is need for further studies using IRT in a wider range of tests involving people with dementia of different etiology and severity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 McGrory et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mungas D, Reed BR: Application of item response theory for development of a global functioning measure of dementia with linear measurement properties. Stat Med 2000, 19:1631-1644.
• [2]Wouters H, van Gool WA, Schmand B, Lindeboom R: Revising the ADAS-cog for a more accurate assessment of cognitive impairment. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2008, 22(3):236-244.
• [3]Lord FM: Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Inc; 1980.
• [4]Reise S, Haviland MG: Item response theory and the measurement of clinical change. J Pers Assess 2005, 84(3):228-238.
• [5]Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ: Fundamentals of Item Response Theory (Measurement Methods for the Social Science). Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
• [6]Mungas D, Reed BR, Kramer JH: Psychometrically matched measures of global cognition, memory and executive function for assessment of cognitive decline in older persons. Neuropsychology 2003, 17(3):380-392.
• [7]Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP: Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000, 38(9 Suppl):1128-1142.
• [8]Wouters H, Zwinderman AH, Van Gool WA, Schmand B, Lindeboom R: Adaptive cognitive testing in dementia. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2009, 18(2):119-127.
• [9]Weiss C, Fried L, Brandeen-Roche K: Exploring the hierarchy of mobility performance in high-functioning older women. J Gerontol Med Sci 2007, 62:167-173.
• [10]Sijtsma K, Emos WH, Bouwmesster S, Nyklicek I, Roorda LD: Nonparametric IRT analysis of quality-of-life scales and its application to the World Health Organization quality of life scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Qual Life Res 2008, 17:275-290.
• [11]Santor DA, Ascher-Svanum H, Lindenmayer JP, Obenchain RL: Item response analysis of the positive and negative syndrome scale. BMC Psychiatry 2007, 7:66-76. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Aggen SH, Neale MC, Kendler KS: DSM criteria for major depression: evaluating symptom patterns using latent-trait item response models. Psychol Med 2005, 35:475-487.
• [13]Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA: An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000, 78:350-365.
• [14]Emons WHM, Meijer RR, Denollet J: Negative affectivity and social inhibition in cardiovascular disease: evaluating type-D personality and its assessment using item response theory. J Psychosom Res 2007, 63:27-39.
• [15]Hill CD, Edwards MC, Thissen D, Langer MM, Wirth RJ, Burwinkle TM, Varni JW: Practical issues in the application of item response theory: a demonstration using items from the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 generic core scales. Med Care 2007, 45(5 Suppl. 1):S39-S47.
• [16]Fieo R, Watson R, Deary IJ, Starr JM: A revised activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living instrument increases interpretive power: Theoretical application for functional tasks exercise. Gerontology 2010, 56:483-490.
• [17]Chan KS, Kasper JD, Brandt J, Pezzin LE: Measurement equivalence in ADL and IADL difficulty across international surveys of aging: findings from the HRS, SHARE, and ELSA. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2012, 67(1):121-132.
• [18]Spector WD, Fleishman JA: Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998, 53(Suppl 1):46-57.
• [19]Jette AM, Haley SM, Coster WJ, Kooyoomjian JT, Leverson S, Heeren T, Ashba J: Late life function and disability instrument: I. Development and evaluation of the disability component. J Gerontol A- Bio Sci Med Sci 2002, 57:209-216.
• [20]Sheehan TJ, DeChello LM, Garcia R, Fifield J, Rothfield N, Reisine S: Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL). J Outcome Meas 2002, 5:839-863.
• [21]McHorney CA, Cohen AS: Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000, 38:43-59.
• [22]Kucukdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Elhan AH, Tennant A: Preliminary study to evaluate the validity of the mini-mental state examination in a normal population in Turkey. Int J Rehabil Res 2005, 28(1):77-79.
• [23]Zheng L, Mack WJ, Chui HC, Heflin L, Mungas D, Reed B, DeCarli C, Weiner MW, Kramer JH: Coronary artery disease is associated with cognitive decline independent of changes on magnetic resonance imaging in cognitively normal elderly adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012, 60:499-504. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03839.x
• [24]Lindeboom R, Schmand B, Holman R, de Haan RJ, Vermeulen M: Improved brief assessment of cognition in aging and dementia. Neurology 2004, 63:543-546.
• [25]Prieto G, Delgado AR, Perea MV, Ladera V: Differential functioning of mini-mental test items according to disease. Neurologia 2011, 26(8):474-480.
• [26]Ideno Y, Takayama M, Hayashi K, Takagi H, Sugai Y: Evaluation of a Japanese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination in elderly persons. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2012, 12:310-316.
• [27]Teresi JA, Golden RR, Cross P, Gurland B, Kleinman M, Wilder D: Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48(4):473-483.
• [28]Wouters H, van Gool WA, Schmand B, Zwinderman AH, Lindeboom R: Three sides of the same coin: measuring global cognitive impairment with the MMSE, ADAS-cog and CAMCOG. Int J Geriat Psychiatry 2010, 25:770-779.
• [29]DeBettignies BH, Mahurin RK, Pirozzolo FJ: Insight for impairment in independent living skills in Alzheimer’s disease and multi-infarct dementia. J Clin Exp Neuropsyc 1990, 12(2):355-363.
• [30]Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weintraub S: The Boston naming test. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1983.
• [31]Guttman L: The basis for scalogram analysis. In Studies in social psychology in World War II: Measurement and Predication, Volume 4. Edited by Stouffer SA, Guttman LA, Suchman FA, Lazarfeld PF, Star SA, Clausen JA. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1950:60-90.
• [32]Harrison JE: Measuring cognitive change in Alzheimer's disease clinical drug trials. J Nutr Health Aging 2007, 11(4):327.
• [33]Kempen GIJM, Myers AM, Powell LE: Hierarchical structure in ADL and IADL: analytical assumptions and applications for clinicians and researchers. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48(11):1299-1305.
• [34]Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: “Mini mental State”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinican. J Psychiatr Res 1975, 12:189-198.
• [35]Salmon DP, Riekkinen PJ, Katzman R, Zhang MY, Jin H, Yu E: Cross-cultural studies of dementia. A comparison of Mini-Mental State Examination in Finland and China. Arch Neurology 1989, 46:769-772.
• [36]Escobar JL, Burnam A, Karno M, Forsythe A, Landsverk J, Golding M: Use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a community population of mixed ethnicity. J Nerv Ment Dis 1986, 174:607-614.
• [37]Hohl U, Grundman M, Salmon DP, Thomas RG, Thal LJ: Mini-Mental State Examination and Mattis Dementia Rating Scale performance differs in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Alzheimer’s disease patients. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1999, 5:301-307.
• [38]Holland PW, Wainer H: Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993.
• [39]Edelen MO, Thissen D, Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K: Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Med Care 2006, 44(11):S134-S142.
• [40]Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K, Ramirez M, Gurland B, Lantigua R, Holmes D: Applications of item response theory to the examination of the psychometric properties and differential item functioning of the comprehensive assessment and referral evaluation dementia diagnostic scale among samples of Latino, African American, and White non-Latino elderly. Res Aging 2000, 22(6):738-773.
• [41]Morales LS, Flowers C, Gutierrez P, Kleinman M, Teresi JA: Item and scale differential functioning of the Mini-Mental State Exam assessed using the differential item and test functioning (DFIT) framework. Med Care 2006, 44(11 Suppl 3):S143.
• [42]Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G: Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIF detect and difwithpar. Med Care 2006, 44(11):S115-S123.
• [43]Marshall SC, Mungas D, Weldon M, Reed B, Haan M: Differential item functioning in the Mini-Mental State Examination in English-and Spanish-speaking older adults. Psychol Aging 1997, 12(4):718-725.
• [44]Van de Vijer F, Hambleton RK: Translating tests: some practical guidelines. Eur Psychol 1996, 1(2):88-89.
• [45]Prieto G, Contador I, Tapias-Merino E, Mitchell AJ, Bermejo-Pareja F: The Mini-Mental-37 test for dementia screening in the Spanish population: an analysis using the Rasch model. Clin Neuropsychol 2012, 26(6):1003-1018.
• [46]Ashford JW, Kolm P, Colliver JA, Bekian C, Hsu LN: Alzheimer patient evaluation and the Mini-Mental State: item characteristic curve analysis. J Gerontol 1989, 44,5:139-146.
• [47]Blessed GT, Roth BE, Tomlinson M: The association between quantitative measures of dementia and of senile changes in the cerebral grey matter of elderly subjects. Brit J Psychiat 1968, 114:797-811.
• [48]Gibbons EL, van Belle G, Yang M, Gil C, Brayne C, Huppert FA, Paykel E, Larson E: Cross-cultural comparison of the Mini-Mental State Examination in United Kingdom and United States participants with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002, 17:723-728. doi:10.1002/gps.683
• [49]Benge JF, Balsis S, Geraci L, Massman PJ, Doody RS: How well do the ADAS-cog and its subscales measure cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease? Dement Geriatr Cogn 2009, 28:63-69. doi:10.1159/000230709
• [50]Petersen RC: Mild underlying cognitive dysfunction as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med 2004, 256:183-194.
• [51]Ligtvoet R: Essays on invariant item ordering. PhD thesis. University of Tilburg; 2010.
• [52]Chapman LJ, Chapman JP: Problems in the measurement of cognitive deficit. Psychol Bull 1973, 79(6):380-385.
• [53]Balsis S, Unger AA, Benge JF, Geraci L, Doody RS: Gaining precision on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive: a comparison of item response theory-based scores and total scores. Alzheimers Dement 2012, 8:288-294.
• [54]de Morton NA, Keating JL, Davidson M: Rasch analysis of the Barthel index in the assessment of hospitalized older patients after admission for an acute medical condition. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2008, 89:641-647.
• [55]Birks J: Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, (1):CD005593.
• [56]Korner A, Brogaard A, Wissum I, Petersen U: The Danish version of the Baylor profound mental state examination. Nord J Psychiatry 2012, 66(3):198-202.
• [57]Dodge HH, Meguro K, Ishii H, Yamaguchi S, Saxton JA, Ganguli M: Cross-cultural comparisons of the Mini-mental State Examination between Japanese and U.S cohorts. Int Psychogeriatr 2009, 21(1):113-122.
• [58]Benge S, Miller TM, Benge JF, Doody RS: Dementia staging across three different methods. Dement Geriatr Cogn 2011, 31(5):328-333.
• [59]Crane PK, Narasimhalu K, Gibbons LE, Pedrazz O, Mehta KM, Tang Y, Manly JJ, Reed BR, Mungas DM: Composite scores for executive function items: Demographic heterogeneity and relationships with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. JINS 2008, 14(5):746-759.
• [60]del Toro CM, Bislick LP, Comer M, Velozo C, Romero S, Gonzalez Rothi LJ, Kendall DL: Development of a short form of the Boston naming test for individuals with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 2011, 54(4):1089-1100.
• [61]Fernandez-Blazquez MA, de Ruiz-Sanchez de Leon JM, Lopez-Pina JA, Llanero-Lurqu M, Montenegro-Pena M, Montejo-Carrasco P: A new shortened version of the Boston Naming Test for those aged over 65: An approach from item response theory. Rev Neurol 2012, 55(7):399-407.
• [62]Graves RE, Bezeau SC, Fogarty J, Blair R: Boston naming test short forms: a comparison of previous forms with new item response theory based forms. J Clin Exp Neuropsyc 2004, 26(7):891-902.
• [63]Diesfeldt HF: Executive functioning in psychogeriatric patients: scalability and construct validity of the Behavioral Dyscontrol Scale (BDS). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004, 19(11):1065-1073.
• [64]Lillo P, Savage S, Mioshi E, Kiernan MC, Hodges JR: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia: a behavioural and cognitive continuum. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 2012, 13:102-109. doi:10.3109/17482968.2011.639376