Literature DB >> 17286198

Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments.

Neil J Dorans1.   

Abstract

To the extent that outcomes of health assessment instruments are to be used interchangeably, the summary scores based on these outcomes need to be equated or made comparable. If the summary scores of different health assessment instruments are not equated, inferences based on them could be flawed. Ideally, summary scores would be comparable because of careful instrument design. In practice, that rarely happens. Statistical intervention is usually needed. This article addresses key questions associated with the linking of summary scores of health outcomes. What is meant by outcome linking and equating? How does equating differ from other types of linking? What common data collection designs are used to capture data for outcomes linking? What are some of the standard statistical procedures used to link outcomes directly? What assumptions do they make? What role does IRT play in linking outcomes? What assumptions do IRT methods make? This article makes a distinction between direct statistical adjustments of summary score distributions, and indirect procedures based on psychometric models of items or questions.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17286198     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-006-9155-3

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


  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurement.

Authors:  M Orlando; C D Sherbourne; D Thissen
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2000-09

3.  Measurement in a multi-ethnic society. Overview to the special issue.

Authors:  Jeanne A Teresi; Anita L Stewart; Leo S Morales; Sidney M Stahl
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.983

  3 in total
  49 in total

1.  Linking the activity measure for post acute care and the quality of life outcomes in neurological disorders.

Authors:  Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Jin-Shei Lai; Feng Tian; Wendy J Coster; Alan M Jette; Donald Straub; David Cella
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 2.  Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Ingrid Riphagen; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Methodology for developing and evaluating the PROMIS smoking item banks.

Authors:  Mark Hansen; Li Cai; Brian D Stucky; Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Maria Orlando Edelen
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 4.244

4.  Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne; Konstancja Densley; Julie F Pallant; Duncan Mortimer; Leonie Segal
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Linking Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores from the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) to the PROMIS(®) Global Health Scale.

Authors:  Benjamin D Schalet; Nan E Rothrock; Ron D Hays; Lewis E Kazis; Karon F Cook; Joshua P Rutsohn; David Cella
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Mapping the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III.

Authors:  Yin Bun Cheung; Hui Xing Tan; Vivian Wei Wang; Nagaendran Kandiah; Nan Luo; Gerald C H Koh; Hwee Lin Wee
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures?

Authors:  Peter M Fayers; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Establishing a Common Metric for Physical Function: Linking the HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF Subscale to PROMIS(®) Physical Function.

Authors:  Benjamin D Schalet; Dennis A Revicki; Karon F Cook; Eswar Krishnan; Jim F Fries; David Cella
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Linking Scores with Patient-Reported Health Outcome Instruments: A Validation Study and Comparison of Three Linking Methods.

Authors:  Benjamin D Schalet; Sangdon Lim; David Cella; Seung W Choi
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 2.500

10.  Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression.

Authors:  Seung W Choi; Benjamin Schalet; Karon F Cook; David Cella
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2014-02-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.