Literature DB >> 12865034

Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory.

Rebecca Holman1, Cees A W Glas, Rob J de Haan.   

Abstract

Patient relevant outcomes, measured using questionnaires, are becoming increasingly popular endpoints in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Recently, interest in the use of item response theory (IRT) to analyze the responses to such questionnaires has increased. In this paper, we used a simulation study to examine the small sample behavior of a test statistic designed to examine the difference in average latent trait level between two groups when the two-parameter logistic IRT model for binary data is used. The simulation study was extended to examine the relationship between the number of patients required in each arm of an RCT, the number of items used to assess them, and the power to detect minimal, moderate, and substantial treatment effects. The results show that the number of patients required in each arm of an RCT varies with the number of items used to assess the patients. However, as long as at least 20 items are used, the number of items barely affects the number of patients required in each arm of an RCT to detect effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.8 with a power of 80%. In addition, the number of items used has more effect on the number of patients required to detect an effect size of 0.2 with a power of 80%. For instance, if only five randomly selected items are used, it is necessary to include 950 patients in each arm, but if 50 items are used, only 450 are required in each arm. These results indicate that if an RCT is to be designed to detect small effects, it is inadvisable to use very short instruments analyzed using IRT. Finally, the SF-36, SF-12, and SF-8 instruments were considered in the same framework. Since these instruments consist of items scored in more than two categories, slightly different results were obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12865034     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00061-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  15 in total

1.  What should be defined as good outcome in stroke trials; a modified Rankin score of 0-1 or 0-2?

Authors:  N Weisscher; M Vermeulen; Y B Roos; R J de Haan
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2008-03-14       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Power Analysis for the Wald, LR, Score, and Gradient Tests in a Marginal Maximum Likelihood Framework: Applications in IRT.

Authors:  Felix Zimmer; Clemens Draxler; Rudolf Debelak
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 2.290

3.  Methodological issues regarding power of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT)-based approaches for the comparison of patient-reported outcomes in two groups of patients--a simulation study.

Authors:  Véronique Sébille; Jean-Benoit Hardouin; Tanguy Le Néel; Gildas Kubis; François Boyer; Francis Guillemin; Bruno Falissard
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Using intervention mapping (IM) to develop a self-management programme for employees with a chronic disease in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Sarah I Detaille; Joost W J van der Gulden; Josephine A Engels; Yvonne F Heerkens; Frank J H van Dijk
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-06-21       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Differential item functioning of the Boston Naming Test in cognitively normal African American and Caucasian older adults.

Authors:  Otto Pedraza; Neill R Graff-Radford; Glenn E Smith; Robert J Ivnik; Floyd B Willis; Ronald C Petersen; John A Lucas
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 2.892

6.  The association of dysmenorrhea with noncyclic pelvic pain accounting for psychological factors.

Authors:  Allyson M Westling; Frank F Tu; James W Griffith; Kevin M Hellman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Chronic hand eczema--self-management and prognosis: a study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Annette Mollerup; Niels Kren Veien; Jeanne Duus Johansen
Journal:  BMC Dermatol       Date:  2012-06-12

8.  Power and sample size determination for the group comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the Rasch model: impact of a misspecification of the parameters.

Authors:  Myriam Blanchin; Alice Guilleux; Bastien Perrot; Angélique Bonnaud-Antignac; Jean-Benoit Hardouin; Véronique Sébille
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  The (mis)measurement of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: exploitation at the core of the scale.

Authors:  Petri J Kajonius; Björn N Persson; Patricia Rosenberg; Danilo Garcia
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  The AMC linear disability score (ALDS): a cross-sectional study with a new generic instrument to measure disability applied to patients with peripheral arterial disease.

Authors:  Rosemarie Met; Jim A Reekers; Mark J W Koelemay; Dink A Legemate; Rob J de Haan
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.