Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) (original) (raw)
References
Breslau N, Rasmussen BK. The impact of migraine: Epidemiology, risk factors, and co-morbidities. Neurology 2001; 56: S4–S12. Google Scholar
Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Simon D, Lipton RB. Epidemiology of tension-type headache. JAMA 1998; 279: 381–383. Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Shechter A, Lipton RB. Migraine heterogeneity. Disability, pain intensity, and attack frequency and duration. Neurology 1994; 44: S24–S39. Google Scholar
The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316–321. Google Scholar
Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Goadsby PJ. Headache-related disability in the management of migraine. Neurology 2001; 56: S1–S3. Google Scholar
Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine-current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 257–270. Google Scholar
Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, et al. Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache 2000; 40: 204–215. Google Scholar
Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Galer BS, Berzon RA. A new instrument to assess the long-term quality of life effects from migraine: Development and psychometric testing of the MSQOL. Headache 1996; 36: 484–492. Google Scholar
Patrick DL, Hurst BC, Hughes J. Further development and testing of the migraine-specific quality of life (MSQOL) measure. Headache 2000; 40: 550–560. Google Scholar
Jacobson GP, Ramadan NM, Aggarwal SK, Newman CW. The Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI). Neurology 1994; 44: 837–842. Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D, Liberman J, Von Korff M. Validity of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 1999; 79: 291–301. Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, Sawyer J. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001; 56: S20–S28. Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K, Liberman J, Sawyer J. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 107–114. Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, Sawyer J, Lee C, Liberman JN. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000; 88: 41–52. Google Scholar
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality Life Res 1995; 4: 293–307. Google Scholar
Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical studies. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 887–902. Google Scholar
Muraki E. Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Appl Psychol Measur 1993; 17: 351–363. Google Scholar
Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Eignor D, et al. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Google Scholar
Wainer H, Mislevy RJ. Item Response Theory, Item Calibration, and Proficiency Estimation. In: Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ, Steinberg L, Thissen D (eds), Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000; 61–101. Google Scholar
Thissen D, Orlando M. Item Response Theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H (eds), Test Scoring. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum, 2001; 73–140. Google Scholar
Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Batenhorst A, Cady RK. The responsiveness of headache impact scales scored using 'classical' and 'modern' psychometric methods: A re-analysis of three clinical trials. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 903–912. Google Scholar
Ware JE Jr, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000; 38: II73–II82. Google Scholar
Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. London: Duke University Press, 1992. Google Scholar
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–69. Google Scholar
Muthen BO, Muthen L. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén, 2001. Google Scholar
Bollen KA, Barb KH. Pearson's r and coarsely categorized measures. Am Sociol Rev 1981; 46: 232–239. Google Scholar
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994. Google Scholar
Ramsay JO. Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika 1991; 56: 611–630. Google Scholar
Ramsay JO. TestGraf-A Program for the Graphical Analysis of Multiple Choice Test and Questionnaire Data. Montreal: McGill University, 1995. Google Scholar
Muraki E. A Generalized Partial Credit Model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. Berlin: Springer, 1997: 153–164. Google Scholar
Bock RD, Aitkin M. marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1981; 46: 443–459. Google Scholar
Muraki E, Bock RD. Parscale-IRT based Test Scoring and Item Analysis for Graded Open-ended Exercises and Performance Tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc., 1996. Google Scholar
Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 935–952. Google Scholar
Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HITTM) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 981–1002. Google Scholar
Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1993. Google Scholar
Thissen D, Steinberg L, Wainer H. Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass, 1993: 67–113. Google Scholar
Muraki E. Stepwise analysis of differential item functioning based on multiple-group partial credit model. Educ Meas 1999; 36: 217–232. Google Scholar
Swaminathan H, Rogers JH. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J Educ Measur 1990; 27: 361–370. Google Scholar
Zumbo BD. A handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense, 1999. Google Scholar
Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991; 78: 691–692. Google Scholar
Bock RD, Mislevy RJ. Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Appl Psychol Meas 1982; 6: 431–444. Google Scholar
Jhingran P, Davis SM, LaVange LM, Miller DW, Helms RW. MSQ: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 707–717. Google Scholar
Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236: 157–161. Google Scholar
Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Sawyer JPC, Blakeborough P, Stewart WF. Migraine: Diagnosis and assessment of disability. Rev Contemp Pharmacotherapy 2000; 11: 63–73. Google Scholar
Jobe JB, Tourangeau R, Smith AF. Contributions of survey research to the understanding of memory. Cognitive Psychol 1993; 7: 567–584. Google Scholar
Glas CAW. Modifications indices for the 2-PL and the Nominal Response Model. Psychometrika 1999; 64: 273–294. Google Scholar
Zieky M. Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In: Holland PW, Wainer H (eds), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993: 337–347. Google Scholar
Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. London: Sage Publications, 1991. Google Scholar