Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2007 | Original Paper

Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?

Auteurs: Dennis A. Revicki, Jeff Sloan

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | bijlage 1/2007

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Item response theory (IRT), item banking and computer adaptive testing (CAT) methods have the potential to provide novel platforms for the collection, analysis and dissemination of patient data on health status and well-being. There are considerable challenges associated with building and maintaining a national item bank and it is uncertain whether there is sufficient interest among key stakeholders for IRT-based and CAT measures. The most convincing activity is demonstrating that the approach is feasible, psychometrically sound and useful in different specific applications. Demonstrated success opens up the possibility of more widespread acceptability and application. As part of the development effort, there needs to be continued meetings and discussion with psychometricians, instrument developers, clinical researchers, the FDA, pharmaceutical industry researchers and a managed care organizations about the advantages and disadvantages of a national item bank.
vorige artikel Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies
volgende artikel Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by Agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services
Literatuur
1.
McHorney, C. A. (1997). Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 743–750.PubMed
2.
Revicki, D. A., & Cella, D. F. (1997). Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: Item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Quality of Life Research, 6, 595–600.PubMedCrossRef
3.
McHorney, C. A. (2002). Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the asset and health dynamics among the oldest old study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 383–394.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bode, R. K., Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Heinenmann A. (2003). Issues in the development of an item bank. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S52–S60.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 100, 441–471.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Rao, C. R. (1955). Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20, 93–111.CrossRef
7.
Kaiser, H. F., & Henry, F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.CrossRef
8.
Kaiser, H. F., Henry, F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117.CrossRef
9.
Kaiser, H. F., & Michael, W. B. (1977). Little Jiffy factor score and domain validities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 363–365.CrossRef
10.
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, (in press).
11.
Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, 53, 370–418.CrossRef
12.
O’Hagan, A., & Luce, B. R. (2003). A primer on bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda, MD: MEDTAP International.
13.
Fryback, D. G., & Hanmer, J. E. (2005). Bayesian analysis of health status and quality of life data. In W. Lenderking & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Advancing health outcomes research methods and clinical applications (pp. 305–323). McLean, VA: International Society for Quality of Life Research.
14.
15.
FDA. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.
16.
Revicki, D. A. (2005). Use of health-related quality of life measures by industry and regulatory agencies in evaluating oncology therapies. In J. Lipscomb, C. Gotay & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 550–567). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9, 887–900.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N., Marquis, P., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 21, 522–531.CrossRef
19.
Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscombe, J., Teschendorf, B. (2006). Patient reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
20.
Snyder, C. F., Watson, M. E., Jackson, J. D., Cella, D., Halyard, M. (2006). Patient reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
21.
Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J., Cleeland, C. (2006). Patient reported outcomes: instrument selection issues. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
22.
Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J., Hays, R. (2006). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient reported outcome measures? Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
23.
Sloan, J. A., Dueck, A., Erickson, P. A., Guess, H., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2006). Analysis, interpretation and reporting results based on patient reported outcomes. Presented at the Mayo-FDA Meeting on the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes: Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization, Chantilly, Virginia, February 2006.
24.
Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., et al. (2006). An exploration of the value of health-related quality of life information from clinical research and in clinical practice? Mayo Clinic Proceedings, (in press).
25.
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Donaldson, M. (2006). Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical oncology practice: Benefits, challenges, and next steps. Expert Review Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 6, 87–95.CrossRef
27.
Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.PubMed
28.
Ryan, J. M., Corry, J. R., Attewell, R., & Smithson, M. J. (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 11, 19–26.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kleinman, L., Leidy, N. K., Crawley, J., Bonomi, A., Schoenfeld, P. (2001). A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Medical Care, 39, 181–189.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., et al. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110, 310–317.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Bushnell, D., Reilly, M. C., Galani, C., Martin, M., Ricci, J. F., et al. (2006). Validation of electronic data capture of the irritable bowel syndrome—quality of life measure, the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for irritable bowel syndrome and the EuroQol. Value in Health, 9, 98–105.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Crawley, J. A., Kleinman, L., & Dominitz, J. (2000). User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Information Journal, 34, 137–144.
33.
Allenby, A., Matthews, J., Beresford, J., & McLachlan, S. A. (2002). The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. European Journal of Cancer Care, 11, 245–253.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?
Auteurs
Dennis A. Revicki
Jeff Sloan
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2007
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave bijlage 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9218-0

Andere artikelen bijlage 1/2007

Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment

  • Original Paper

Differential item functioning and health assessment

  • Original Paper

Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies

Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress

  • Original Paper

Development and evaluation of a computer adaptive test for ‘Anxiety’ (Anxiety-CAT)

Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales

  • Original Paper