Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 543-549 , May 2010

The use of an item response theory–based disability item bank across diseases: accounting for differential item functioning

  • Nadine Weisscher

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Cees A. Glas

      Affiliations

    • Department of Educational Measurement, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Marinus Vermeulen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Rob J. De Haan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-118, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31-20-56-62063.

,Accepted 28 July 2009.

References 

  1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–74
  2. Mahoney F, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–65
  3. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137–145
  4. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:187–193
  5. The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association . Nomenclature and criteria for diagnosis of diseases of the heart and great vessels. 9th edition.. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co; 1994;253–256
  6. Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, de Haan RJ. Activities of daily living instruments: optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology. 2003;60:738–742
  7. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28–II42
  8. Holman R, Weisscher N, Glas CA, Dijkgraaf MGW, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ, et al. The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score (ALDS) item bank: item response theory analysis in a mixed patient population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:83
  9. De Haan RJ, Vermeulen M, Holman R, Lindeboom R. Measuring the functional status of patients in clinical trials using modern clinimetric methods. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2002;146:606–611[in Dutch]
  10. Holman R, Lindeboom R, de Haan R. Gender and age based differential item functioning in the AMC linear disability score project. Qual Life Newsletter. 2004;32:1–4
  11. Holman R, Lindeboom R, Glas CAW, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ. Constructing an item bank using item response theory; The AMC Linear Disability Score Project. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2003;4:19–33
  12. Holman R, Glas CAW, Lindeboom R, Zwinderman AH, Haan de RJ. Practical methods for dealing with “not applicable” item responses in the AMC Linear Disability Score Project. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:29
  13. Holman R, Glas CA. Modelling non-ignorable missing-data mechanisms with item response theory models. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2005;58:1–17
  14. Holman R, Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Glas CAW, Haan de RJ. The Amsterdam Linear Disability Score (ALDS) Project; the calibration of an item bank to measure functional status using item response theory. Qual Life Newsletter. 2001;27:4–5
  15. Holman R, Glas CA, de Haan RJ. Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:390–410
  16. Holman R, Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, de Haan R. The AMC Linear Disability Score Project in a population requiring residential care: psychometric properties. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:42
  17. Weisscher N, Wijbrandts CA, de Haan R, Glas CA, Vermeulen M, Tak PP. The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score item bank: psychometric properties of a new generic disability measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1222–1228
  18. Weisscher N, Post B, de Haan RJ, Glas CA, Speelman JD, Vermeulen M. The AMC Linear Disability Score in patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2007;69:2155–2161
  19. Weisscher N, Vermeulen M, Roos YB, de Haan RJ. What should be defined as good outcome in stroke trials; a modified Rankin score of 0-1 or 0-2?. J Neurol. 2008;255:867–874
  20. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993;
  21. Camilli G, Sheppard LA. Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994;
  22. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade 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:I-37–I-48
  23. Glas CAW, Verhelst ND. Testing the Rasch model. In:  Fischer GH,  Molenaar IW editor. Rasch model. Their foundations, recent developments and applications. New York: Springer; 1995;p. 69–96
  24. Glas CAW. Detection of differential item functioning using Lagrange multiplier tests. Stat Sin. 1998;8:647–667
  25. Grisay A, de Jong JH, Gebhardt E, Berezner A, Halleux-Monseur B. Translation equivalence across PISA countries. J Appl Meas. 2007;8:249–266
  26. Gebhardt E, Adams RJ. The influence of equating methodology on reported trends in PISA. J Appl Meas. 2007;8:305–322
  27. De Jong MG, Steenkamp JBEM, Fox JP. Relaxing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research using a hierarchical IRT model. J Consumer Res. 2007;34:260–278
  28. Glas CAW, Suarez-Falcon JC. A comparison of item-fit statistics for the three-parameter logistic model. Appl Psychol Meas. 2003;27:87–106

PII: S0895-4356(09)00228-5

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.07.016

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 543-549 , May 2010

Article Tools