OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a first computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the measurement of stress perception (Stress-CAT), in terms of the two dimensions: exposure to stress and stress reaction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Item response theory modeling was performed using a two-parameter model (Generalized Partial Credit Model). The evaluation of the Stress-CAT comprised a simulation study and real clinical application. A total of 1,092 psychosomatic patients (N1) were studied. Two hundred simulees (N2) were generated for a simulated response data set. Then the Stress-CAT was given to n=116 inpatients, (N3) together with established stress questionnaires as validity criteria. RESULTS: The final banks included n=38 stress exposure items and n=31 stress reaction items. In the first simulation study, CAT scores could be estimated with a high measurement precision (SE<0.32; rho>0.90) using 7.0+/-2.3 (M+/-SD) stress reaction items and 11.6+/-1.7 stress exposure items. The second simulation study reanalyzed real patients data (N1) and showed an average use of items of 5.6+/-2.1 for the dimension stress reaction and 10.0+/-4.9 for the dimension stress exposure. Convergent validity showed significantly high correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The Stress-CAT is short and precise, potentially lowering the response burden of patients in clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a first computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the measurement of stress perception (Stress-CAT), in terms of the two dimensions: exposure to stress and stress reaction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Item response theory modeling was performed using a two-parameter model (Generalized Partial Credit Model). The evaluation of the Stress-CAT comprised a simulation study and real clinical application. A total of 1,092 psychosomaticpatients (N1) were studied. Two hundred simulees (N2) were generated for a simulated response data set. Then the Stress-CAT was given to n=116 inpatients, (N3) together with established stress questionnaires as validity criteria. RESULTS: The final banks included n=38 stress exposure items and n=31 stress reaction items. In the first simulation study, CAT scores could be estimated with a high measurement precision (SE<0.32; rho>0.90) using 7.0+/-2.3 (M+/-SD) stress reaction items and 11.6+/-1.7 stress exposure items. The second simulation study reanalyzed real patients data (N1) and showed an average use of items of 5.6+/-2.1 for the dimension stress reaction and 10.0+/-4.9 for the dimension stress exposure. Convergent validity showed significantly high correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The Stress-CAT is short and precise, potentially lowering the response burden of patients in clinical decision making.
Authors: Diane M Turner-Bowker; Renee N Saris-Baglama; Michael A Derosa; Christine A Paulsen; Christopher P Bransfield Journal: Patient Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Diane M Turner-Bowker; Renee N Saris-Baglama; Michael A Derosa; Christine A Paulsen; Christopher P Bransfield Journal: Patient Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: H Felix Fischer; Cassandra Klug; Koosje Roeper; Eva Blozik; Frank Edelmann; Marion Eisele; Stefan Störk; Rolf Wachter; Martin Scherer; Matthias Rose; Christoph Herrmann-Lingen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Celeste L Overbeek; Sjoerd P F T Nota; Prakash Jayakumar; Michiel G Hageman; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Niels Smits; Frans G Zitman; Pim Cuijpers; Margien E den Hollander-Gijsman; Ingrid V E Carlier Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Stephanie Nikolaus; Christina Bode; Erik Taal; Harald E Vonkeman; Cees A W Glas; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Derek Paul De Beurs; Anton Lm de Vries; Marieke H de Groot; Jos de Keijser; Ad Jfm Kerkhof Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 5.428