Literature DB >> 14651411

The responsiveness of headache impact scales scored using 'classical' and 'modern' psychometric methods: a re-analysis of three clinical trials.

M Kosinski1, J B Bjorner, J E Ware, A Batenhorst, R K Cady.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While item response theory (IRT) offers many theoretical advantages over classical test theory in the construction and scoring of patient based measures of health few studies compare scales constructed from both methodologies head to head.
OBJECTIVE: Compare the responsiveness to treatment of migraine specific scales scored using summated rating scale methods vs. IRT methods.
METHODS: The data came from three clinical studies of migraine treatment that used the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ). Five methods of quantifying responsiveness were used to evaluate and compare changes from pre- to post-treatment in MSQ scales scored using Likert and IRT scaling methods.
RESULTS: Changes in all MSQ scale scores from pre- to post-treatment were highly significant in all three studies. A single index scored from the MSQ using IRT methods was determined to be more responsive than any one of the MSQ subscales across the five methods used to quantify responsiveness. Across 13 of the 15 tests (5 responsiveness methods * 3 studies) conducted, the single index scored from the MSQ using IRT methods was the most responsive measure.
CONCLUSIONS: IRT methods increased the responsiveness of the MSQ to the treatment of migraine. The results agree with the psychometric evidence that suggest that it is feasible to score a single index from the MSQ using IRT methods. This approach warrants further testing with other measures of migraine impact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14651411     DOI: 10.1023/a:1026111029376

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


  36 in total

1.  Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.

Authors:  R D Hays; L S Morales; S P Reise
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items.

Authors:  C A McHorney; A S Cohen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI Physical Functioning Scales.

Authors:  W P Fisher; R L Eubanks; R L Marier
Journal:  J Outcome Meas       Date:  1997

4.  Observational study of quality of life in patients with headache, receiving homeopathic treatment.

Authors:  G Muscari-Tomaioli; F Allegri; E Miali; R Pomposelli; P Tubia; A Targhetta; M Castellini; P Bellavite
Journal:  Br Homeopath J       Date:  2001-10

5.  Changes in resource use and outcomes for patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan: a managed care perspective.

Authors:  J H Lofland; N E Johnson; A S Batenhorst; D B Nash
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1999-04-26

6.  Application of random effects models and other methods to the analysis of multidimensional quality of life data in an AIDS clinical trial.

Authors:  A W Wu; S M Gray; R Brookmeyer
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability.

Authors:  W F Stewart; R B Lipton; A J Dowson; J Sawyer
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1).

Authors:  B C Martin; D S Pathak; M I Sharfman; J U Adelman; F Taylor; W J Kwong; P Jhingran
Journal:  Headache       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.887

9.  Quality of life assessment among migraine patients treated with sumatriptan.

Authors:  G D Solomon; F G Skobieranda; J R Genzen
Journal:  Headache       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 5.887

10.  Improvements in health-related quality of life with sumatriptan treatment for migraine.

Authors:  P Jhingran; R K Cady; J Rubino; D Miller; R B Grice; D L Gutterman
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 0.493

View more
  10 in total

1.  Measuring communicative participation: a review of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology.

Authors:  Tanya L Eadie; Kathryn M Yorkston; Estelle R Klasner; Brian J Dudgeon; Jean C Deitz; Carolyn R Baylor; Robert M Miller; Dagmar Amtmann
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the Medical Outcomes Trust framework.

Authors:  Joseph Lipscomb; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn C Gotay
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Development and validation of a quality of life instrument for patients with drug dependence: comparisons with SF-36 and WHOQOL-100.

Authors:  Chonghua Wan; Jiqian Fang; Runsheng Jiang; Jie Shen; Dan Jiang; Xin Tu; Susan Messing; Wan Tang
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 5.837

4.  Development and preliminary testing of a computerized adaptive assessment of chronic pain.

Authors:  Milena D Anatchkova; Renee N Saris-Baglama; Mark Kosinski; Jakob B Bjorner
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.820

5.  The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies.

Authors:  Jakob B Bjorner; Mark Kosinski; John E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT).

Authors:  Jakob B Bjorner; Mark Kosinski; John E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Nonparametric IRT analysis of Quality-of-Life Scales and its application to the World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-Bref).

Authors:  Klaas Sijtsma; Wilco H M Emons; Samantha Bouwmeester; Ivan Nyklícek; Leo D Roorda
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-02-02       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Statistical considerations in the psychometric validation of outcome measures.

Authors:  Alla Sikorskii; Philip C Noble
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Intradermal Testing Doubles Identification of Allergy among 110 Immunotherapy-Responsive Patients with Eustachian Tube Dysfunction.

Authors:  David S Hurst; Bruce R Gordon; Alan B McDaniel; Dennis S Poe
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-24

10.  Clinical Relevance and Advantages of Intradermal Test Results in 371 Patients with Allergic Rhinitis, Asthma and/or Otitis Media with Effusion.

Authors:  David S Hurst; Alan B McDaniel
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 6.600

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.