Modern psychometrics applied in rheumatology–A systematic review

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Mart AFJ Van de Laar¹  Cees AW Glas³  Erik Taal²  Peter M ten Klooster²  Liseth Siemons² 

[1] Department of Rheumatology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Arthritis Center Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands;Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, Arthritis Center Twente, University of Twente, PO Box 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, the Netherlands;Department of Research Methodology, Measurement and Data Analysis, Arthritis Center Twente, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

关键词: Rheumatology;    Patient-reported outcomes;    Modern psychometrics;    Item response theory;    Clinical measures;   

Others  :  1135733
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-216

 received in 2012-04-13, accepted in 2012-10-26,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although item response theory (IRT) appears to be increasingly used within health care research in general, a comprehensive overview of the frequency and characteristics of IRT analyses within the rheumatic field is lacking. An overview of the use and application of IRT in rheumatology to date may give insight into future research directions and highlight new possibilities for the improvement of outcome assessment in rheumatic conditions. Therefore, this study systematically reviewed the application of IRT to patient-reported and clinical outcome measures in rheumatology.

Methods

Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science resulted in 99 original English-language articles which used some form of IRT-based analysis of patient-reported or clinical outcome data in patients with a rheumatic condition. Both general study information and IRT-specific information were assessed.

Results

Most studies used Rasch modeling for developing or evaluating new or existing patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis patients. Outcomes of principle interest were physical functioning and quality of life. Since the last decade, IRT has also been applied to clinical measures more frequently. IRT was mostly used for evaluating model fit, unidimensionality and differential item functioning, the distribution of items and persons along the underlying scale, and reliability. Less frequently used IRT applications were the evaluation of local independence, the threshold ordering of items, and the measurement precision along the scale.

Conclusion

IRT applications have markedly increased within rheumatology over the past decades. To date, IRT has primarily been applied to patient-reported outcomes, however, applications to clinical measures are gaining interest. Useful IRT applications not yet widely used within rheumatology include the cross-calibration of instrument scores and the development of computerized adaptive tests which may reduce the measurement burden for both the patient and the clinician. Also, the measurement precision of outcome measures along the scale was only evaluated occasionally. Performed IRT analyses should be adequately explained, justified, and reported. A global consensus about uniform guidelines should be reached concerning the minimum number of assumptions which should be met and best ways of testing these assumptions, in order to stimulate the quality appraisal of performed IRT analyses.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Siemons et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fries JF: The promise of the future, updated: better outcome tools, greater relevance, more efficient study, lower research costs. Fut Rheumatol 2006, 1:415-421.
• [2]Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D: The promise of PROMIS: Using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23:S53-S57.
• [3]Van Riel PLCM, Fransen J, Scott DL: Eular handbook of clinical assessments in rheumatoid arthritis. Alphen aan den Rijn: Van Zuiden Communications; 2004.
• [4]Pala O, Cavaliere LF: Joint counts. In Clinical care in the rheumatic diseases. Edited by Bartlett SJ. Atlanta (GA): Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals; 2006:39-41.
• [5]Scott DL, Houssien DA: Joint assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1996, 35:14-18.
• [6]Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR: Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum-Arthritis Care Res 1980, 23:137-145.
• [7]Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
• [8]Belvedere SL, de Morton NA: Application of Rasch analysis in health care is increasing and is applied for variable reasons in mobility instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:1287-1297.
• [9]McHorney CA: Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:743-750.
• [10]McHorney CA: Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons. Ann Intern Med 2003, 139:403-409.
• [11]Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ: Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1991.
• [12]Scheerens J, Glas CAW, Thomas SM: Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring. A systematic approach. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 2003.
• [13]Baker FB, Kim S-H: Item response theory. Parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004.
• [14]Baker FB: The basics of item response theory. College Park (MD): ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation; 2001.
• [15]Reeve BB, Fayers P: Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods of Practice. 2nd edition. Edited by Fayers P, Hays RD. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:55-73.
• [16]Fries JF, Bruce B, Bjorner J, Rose M: More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65:iii16-iii21.
• [17]McHorney CA, Cohen AS: Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000, 38:II-43-II-59.
• [18]Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, Lawton G, Simone A, Carter J, Lundgren-Nilsson A, et al.: Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004, 42:I37-I48.
• [19]Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP: Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000, 38:II28-II42.
• [20]Revicki DA, Cella DF: Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 1997, 6:595-600.
• [21]Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks M, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L: OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 2007, 8:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Tennant A, Conaghan PG: The rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum-Arthritis Care Res 2007, 57:1358-1362.
• [23]Orlando M: Critical issues to address when applying item response theory (IRT) models. Paper presented at: Conference on Improving Health Outcomes Assessment Based on Modern Measurement Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing, Bethesda, MD, June 23-25, 2004
• [24]Embretson SE, Reise SP: Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
• [25]Mokken RJ: A theory and procedure of scale analysis with applications in political research. The Hague: Mouton; 1971.
• [26]Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW: Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
• [27]Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L: ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998, 79:1038-1042.
• [28]Wolfe F, Michaud K, Kahler K, Omar M: The Short Arthritis Assessment Scale: a brief assessment questionnaire for rapid evaluation of arthritis severity in research and clinical practice. J Rheumatol 2004, 31:2472-2479.
• [29]Budiman-Mak E, Conrad K, Stuck R, Matters M: Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int 2006, 27:519-527.
• [30]Conaghan PG, Emerton M, Tennant A: Internal construct validity of the Oxford knee scale: Evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Care Res 2007, 57:1363-1367.
• [31]Durez P, Fraselle V, Houssiau F, Thonnard JL, Nielens H, Penta M: Validation of the ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66:1098-1105.
• [32]Helliwell P, Reay N, Gilworth G, Redmond A, Slade A, Tennant A, Woodburn J: Development of a foot impact scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum-Arthritis Care Res 2005, 53:418-422.
• [33]Paulsen T, Grotle M, Garratt A, Kjeken I: Development and psychometric testing of the patient-reported measure of activity performance of the hand (MAP-Hand) in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rehabil Med 2010, 42:636-644.
• [34]Vanthuyne M, Smith V, Arat S, Westhovens R, Keyser FD, Houssiau FA, Thonnard JL, Vandervelde L: Validation of a manual ability questionnaire in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res 2009, 61:695-703.
• [35]Haugen IK, Moe RH, Slatkowsky-Christensen B, Kvien TK, van der Heijde D, Garratt A: The AUSCAN subscales, AIMS-2 hand/finger subscale, and FIOHA were not unidimensional scales. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1039-1046.
• [36]Ko Y, Lo N-N, Yeo S-J, Yang K-Y, Yeo W, Chong H-C, Thumboo J: Rasch analysis of the Oxfort Knee Score. Osteoarthr Cartilage 2009, 17:1163-1169.
• [37]Woodburn J, Vliet Vlieland TP, van der Leeden M, Steultjens MP: Rasch analysis of Dutch-translated version of the Foot Impact Scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2011, 50:1315-1319.
• [38]Boeckstyns MEH: Development and construct validity of a knee pain questionnaire. Pain 1987, 31:47-52.
• [39]Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A: The Visual Analogue WOMAC 3.0 scale - internal validity and responsiveness of the VAS version. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]O'Malley KJ, Suarez-Almazor M, Aniol J, Richardson P, Kuykendall DH, Moseley JB Jr, Wray NP: Joint-specific multidimensional assessment of pain (J-MAP): factor structure, reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2003, 30:534-543.
• [41]Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, Willems WJ, Heyligers IC, Voaklander DC, Kelly KD, Suarez-Almazor ME: Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2004, 63:36-42.
• [42]Wolfe F: Pain extent and diagnosis: development and validation of the regional pain scale in 12,799 patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol 2003, 30:369-378.
• [43]Davis AM, Badley EM, Beaton DE, Kopec J, Wright JG, Young NL, Williams JI: Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index: results from community and arthroplasty samples. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:1076-1083.
• [44]Cieza A, Hilfiker R, Boonen A, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustun BT, Stucki G: Items from patient-oriented instruments can be integrated into interval scales to operationalize categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:912-921.
• [45]Covic T, Pallant JF, Conaghan PG, Tennant A: A longitudinal evaluation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) in a rheumatoid arthritis population using Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Covic T, Pallant JF, Tennant A, Cox S, Emery P, Conaghan PG: Variability in depression prevalence in early rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of the CES-D and HAD-D Scales. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009, 10:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Gilworth G, Chamberlain MA, Harvey A, Woodhouse A, Smith J, Smyth MG, Tennant A: Development of a work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum-Arthritis Care Res 2003, 49:349-354.
• [48]Gilworth G, Emery P, Barkham N, Smyth MG, Helliwell P, Tennant A: Reducing work disability in Ankylosing Spondylitis: development of a work instability scale for AS. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009, 10:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [49]Gilworth G, Emery P, Gossec L, Vliet Vlieland TP, Breedveld FC, Hueber AJ, Schett G, Tennant A: Adaptation and cross-cultural validation of the rheumatoid arthritis work instability scale (RA-WIS). Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:1686-1690.
• [50]Tang K, Beaton DE, Lacaille D, Gignac MAM, Zhang W, Anis AH, Bombardier C, Canadian Arthrit Network Work P: The Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS): Does it work in osteoarthritis? Qual Life Res 2010, 19:1057-1068.
• [51]Tang K: Disease-related differential item functioning in the work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis: converging results from three methods. Arthritis Care Res 2011, 63:1159-1169.
• [52]Bode RK, Klein-Gitelman MS, Miller ML, Lechman TS, Pachman LM: Disease activity score for children with juvenile dermatomyositis: Reliability and validity evidence. Arthritis Rheum-Arthritis Care Res 2003, 49:7-15.
• [53]Lawton G, Bhakta BB, Chamberlain MA, Tennant A: The Behcet's disease activity index. Rheumatology 2004, 43:73-78.
• [54]Siemons L, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, Kuper IH, van Riel P, van de Laar M, Glas CAW: Validating the 28-Tender Joint Count Using Item Response Theory. J Rheumatol 2011, 38:2557-2564.
• [55]Brunner HI, Feldman BM, Urowitz MB, Gladman DD: Item weightings for the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Disease Damage Index using Rasch analysis do not lead to an important improvement. J Rheumatol 2003, 30:292-297.
• [56]Wolfe F, van der Heijde DM, Larsen A: Assessing radiographic status of rheumatoid arthritis: introduction of a short erosion scale. J Rheumatol 2000, 27:2090-2099.
• [57]Conaghan PG, Tennant A, Peterfy CG, Woodworth T, Stevens R, Guermazi A, Genant H, Felson DT, Hunter D: Examining a whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging scoring system for osteoarthritis of the knee using Rasch analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2006, 14 Suppl A:A116-A121.
• [58]Kopec JA, Sayre EC, Davis AM, Badley EM, Abrahamowicz M, Sherlock L, Williams JI, Anis AH, Esdaile JM: Assessment of health-related quality of life in arthritis: conceptualization and development of five item banks using item response theory. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006., 4
• [59]Jette AM, McDonough CM, Haley SM, Ni PS, Olarsch S, Latham N, Hambleton RK, Felson D, Kim YJ, Hunter D: A computer-adaptive disability instrument for lower extremity osteoarthritis research demonstrated promising breadth, precision, and reliability. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:807-815.
• [60]Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE, Sullivan E, Straus WL: An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:715-723.
• [61]Tennant A, MS P, Hagell P: Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004, 7:S22-S26.
• [62]Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T: Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum-Arthritis Care Res 2004, 50:3296-3305.
• [63]Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY: The dimensions of health outcomes: The Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol 1982, 9:789-793.
• [64]Dorans NJ: Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:85-94.
• [65]Pham T, van der Heijde DM, Pouchot J, Guillemin F: Development and validation of the French ASQoL questionnaire. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2010, 28:379-385.
• [66]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010, 19:539-549.