Literature DB >> 29882470

Feasibility Study Using Propensity Score Matching Methods for the Pseudo-Common Person Equating Requirement.

Ickpyo Hong1, Catherine C Hay1, Timothy A Reistetter1.   

Abstract

We tested if a propensity score (PS) matching method supports the unidimensionality assumption of the Rasch model which is critical to link similar rehabilitation instruments. We obtained 1,013 respondents from the 2009 Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly Frailty study. We used a unidimensional item pool of 10 SF-36 physical function and nine activities of daily living items. Subjects were matched based on their functionality (high and low), and exploratory factor analysis was used to test if the item pool in the matched sample holds the unidimensionality assumption. The study findings revealed that the matched sample demonstrated two distinct measurement structures with excellent model fit. This finding indicates that the PS matching did not mimic the common-person assumption. Therefore, the combination of PS matching and common-person equating method may not be appropriate to equate two rehabilitation-related instruments administered to two different groups.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SF-36; activities of daily living; factor analysis; outcome measure; propensity score matching; unidimensionality

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29882470      PMCID: PMC6415543          DOI: 10.1177/1539449218778535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  OTJR (Thorofare N J)        ISSN: 1539-4492


  11 in total

1.  Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores.

Authors:  S T Normand; M B Landrum; E Guadagnoli; J Z Ayanian; T J Ryan; P D Cleary; B J McNeil
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Equating and item banking with the Rasch model.

Authors:  E W Wolfe
Journal:  J Appl Meas       Date:  2000

3.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

4.  A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Muhammad M Mamdani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).

Authors:  Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons.

Authors:  Colleen A McHorney
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-09-02       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Equating activities of daily living outcome measures: the Functional Independence Measure and the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index.

Authors:  Ickpyo Hong; Hee-Soon Woo; Sunhwa Shim; Chih-Ying Li; Lim Yoonjeong; Craig A Velozo
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.033

9.  Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set.

Authors:  Craig A Velozo; Katherine L Byers; Ying-Chih Wang; Bryttnee Roberts Joseph
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2007

10.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.