Literature DB >> 35870045

Establishing thresholds for meaningful within-individual change using longitudinal item response theory.

Jakob Bue Bjorner1,2, Berend Terluin3, Andrew Trigg4, Jinxiang Hu5, Keri J S Brady6, Pip Griffiths7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Thresholds for meaningful within-individual change (MWIC) are useful for interpreting patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). Transition ratings (TR) have been recommended as anchors to establish MWIC. Traditional statistical methods for analyzing MWIC such as mean change analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and predictive modeling ignore problems of floor/ceiling effects and measurement error in the PROM scores and the TR item. We present a novel approach to MWIC estimation for multi-item scales using longitudinal item response theory (LIRT).
METHODS: A Graded Response LIRT model for baseline and follow-up PROM data was expanded to include a TR item measuring latent change. The LIRT threshold parameter for the TR established the MWIC threshold on the latent metric, from which the observed PROM score MWIC threshold was estimated. We compared the LIRT approach and traditional methods using an example data set with baseline and three follow-up assessments differing by magnitude of score improvement, variance of score improvement, and baseline-follow-up score correlation.
RESULTS: The LIRT model provided good fit to the data. LIRT estimates of observed PROM MWIC varied between 3 and 4 points score improvement. In contrast, results from traditional methods varied from 2 to 10 points-strongly associated with proportion of self-rated improvement. Best agreement between methods was seen when approximately 50% rated their health as improved.
CONCLUSION: Results from traditional analyses of anchor-based MWIC are impacted by study conditions. LIRT constitutes a promising and more robust analytic approach to identifying thresholds for MWIC.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Item response theory; Longitudinal studies; Meaningful within-individual change; Minimal important change; Minimal important difference

Year:  2022        PMID: 35870045     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-022-03172-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   3.440


  3 in total

1.  Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Sepideh S Farivar; Honghu Liu
Journal:  COPD       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.409

2.  Present state bias in transition ratings was accurately estimated in simulated and real data.

Authors:  Berend Terluin; Philip Griffiths; Andrew Trigg; Caroline B Terwee; Jakob B Bjorner
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-12-26       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The minimal perceived change: a formal model of the responder definition according to the patient's meaning of change for patient-reported outcome data analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Antoine Vanier; Véronique Sébille; Myriam Blanchin; Jean-Benoit Hardouin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.