Literature DB >> 12769138

The potential synergy between cognitive models and modern psychometric models.

Jakob B Bjorner1, John E Ware, Mark Kosinski.   

Abstract

Analyses of cognitive aspects of survey methodology (CASM) and psychometric analysis are two methods that are able to complement each other. We use concrete examples to illustrate how psychometric analyses can test hypotheses from CASM. The psychometrics framework recognizes that survey responses are affected by other factors than the concept being assessed, for example by cognitive factors and processes. Such factors are subsumed under the concept of measurement error. Possible sources of measurement error can be tested, e.g. by randomized experiments. A standard way to reduce measurement error is to ask several questions about the same concept and combine the answers into a multi-item scale that is more precise than the individual items. Techniques like structural equation models use the item correlations to assess the magnitude of measurement error and to test the assumptions behind the multi-item scale, e.g. the effect of common response choices and item time frames. A central problem in modern psychometrics is how to model the mapping of the continuous latent variable onto the item response choice categories. This is achieved by threshold models (e.g. item response models and structural equation models for categorical data). These models can, for example, analyze the impact of mode of administration, test whether the items function in the same way for all people (measurement invariance/differential item functioning) and examine the consistency of responses from any single person. Such analyses provide new possibilities for combining psychometrics and cognitive methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12769138     DOI: 10.1023/a:1023295421684

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.

Authors:  A E Raczek; J E Ware; J B Bjorner; B Gandek; S M Haley; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; P Bech; J E Brazier; M Bullinger; M Sullivan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36.

Authors:  J B Bjorner; S Kreiner; J E Ware; M T Damsgaard; P Bech
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey.

Authors:  C A McHorney; M Kosinski; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.

Authors:  Steven P Reise; Keith F Widaman; Robin H Pugh
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  What do global self-rated health items measure?

Authors:  N M Krause; G M Jay
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Self-rated health revisited: exploring survey interview episodes with elderly respondents.

Authors:  M Jylhä
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  The meaning of older adults' health appraisals: congruence with health status and determinant of mortality.

Authors:  E A Borawski; J M Kinney; E Kahana
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.077

  7 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  Characteristics of health-related self-report measures for children aged three to eight years: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Joanne Cremeens; Christine Eiser; Mark Blades
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment.

Authors:  Jakob Bue Bjorner; Chih-Hung Chang; David Thissen; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Development of the Healthy Pathways Parent-Report Scales.

Authors:  Katherine B Bevans; Anne W Riley; Christopher B Forrest
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Incorporating the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) into an electronic health record to create indicators of function: proof of concept using the SF-12.

Authors:  Nancy E Mayo; Lise Poissant; Sara Ahmed; Lois Finch; Johanne Higgins; Nancy M Salbach; Judith Soicher; Susan Jaglal
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2004-08-06       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Validity of patient-reported health-related quality of life global ratings of change using structural equation modeling.

Authors:  Stacie M Metz; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Ajit N Babu; Kurt Kroenke; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey.

Authors:  Helene Feveile; Ole Olsen; Annie Hogh
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-06-26       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Bruce D Rapkin
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2004-03-23       Impact factor: 3.186

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.