BACKGROUND: We developed and validated a Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care (PSCC) measure using classical test theory methods. The present study applied item response theory (IRT) analysis to determine item-level psychometric properties, facilitate development of short forms, and inform future applications for the PSCC. METHODS: We applied unidimensional IRT models to PSCC data from 1,296 participants (73% female; 18 to 86 years). An unconstrained graded response model (GRM) and a Rasch Model were fitted to estimate indices for model comparison using likelihood ratio (LR) test and information criteria. We computed item and latent trait parameter estimates, category and operating characteristic curves, and tested information curves for the better fitting model. RESULTS: The GRM fitted the data better than the Rasch Model (LR = 828, df = 17, p < 0.001). The log-likelihood (-17,390.38 vs. -17,804.26) was larger, and the AIC and BIC were smaller for the GRM compared to the Rash Model (AIC = 34,960.77 vs. 35,754.73; BIC = 35,425.80 vs. 36,131.92). Item parameter estimates (IPEs) showed substantial variation in items' discriminating power (0.94 to 2.18). Standard errors of the IPEs were small (threshold parameters mostly around 0.1; discrimination parameters 0.1 to 0.2), confirming the precision of the IPEs. CONCLUSION: The GRM provides precise IPEs that will enable comparable scores from different subsets of items, and facilitate optimal selections of items to estimate patients' latent satisfaction level. Given the large calibration sample, the IPEs can be used in settings with limited resources (e.g., smaller samples) to estimate patients' satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We developed and validated a Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care (PSCC) measure using classical test theory methods. The present study applied item response theory (IRT) analysis to determine item-level psychometric properties, facilitate development of short forms, and inform future applications for the PSCC. METHODS: We applied unidimensional IRT models to PSCC data from 1,296 participants (73% female; 18 to 86 years). An unconstrained graded response model (GRM) and a Rasch Model were fitted to estimate indices for model comparison using likelihood ratio (LR) test and information criteria. We computed item and latent trait parameter estimates, category and operating characteristic curves, and tested information curves for the better fitting model. RESULTS: The GRM fitted the data better than the Rasch Model (LR = 828, df = 17, p < 0.001). The log-likelihood (-17,390.38 vs. -17,804.26) was larger, and the AIC and BIC were smaller for the GRM compared to the Rash Model (AIC = 34,960.77 vs. 35,754.73; BIC = 35,425.80 vs. 36,131.92). Item parameter estimates (IPEs) showed substantial variation in items' discriminating power (0.94 to 2.18). Standard errors of the IPEs were small (threshold parameters mostly around 0.1; discrimination parameters 0.1 to 0.2), confirming the precision of the IPEs. CONCLUSION: The GRM provides precise IPEs that will enable comparable scores from different subsets of items, and facilitate optimal selections of items to estimate patients' latent satisfaction level. Given the large calibration sample, the IPEs can be used in settings with limited resources (e.g., smaller samples) to estimate patients' satisfaction.
Authors: Pascal Jean-Pierre; Kevin Fiscella; Karen M Freund; Jack Clark; Julie Darnell; Alan Holden; Douglas Post; Steven R Patierno; Paul C Winters Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Pascal Jean-Pierre; Kevin Fiscella; Paul C Winters; Electra Paskett; Kristen Wells; Tracy Battaglia Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ming Yang; Elizabeth Wu; Huiying Rao; Fanny H Du; Angela Xie; Shanna Cheng; Cassandra Rodd; Andy Lin; Lai Wei; Anna S Lok Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Pascal Jean-Pierre; Can Shao; Ying Cheng; Kristen J Wells; Electra Paskett; Kevin Fiscella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Uwe Konerding; Tom Bowen; Sylvia G Elkhuizen; Raquel Faubel; Paul Forte; Eleftheria Karampli; Tomi Malmström; Elpida Pavi; Paulus Torkki Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240