Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms.
Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11136-009-9560-5
复制
发表时间：
2010-02
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Cella, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Choi, Seung W.;Reise, Steven P.;Pilkonis, Paul A.;Hays, Ron D.;Cella, David
简短的患者报告结果测量很受欢迎，因为它们可以最大程度地减少患者负担。我们使用患者报告结果测量信息系统 (PROMIS) 项目的数据评估了静态简表和计算机自适应测试 (CAT) 的效率。我们评估了 28 项 PROMIS 抑郁症状库。我们使用基于 PROMIS 校准样本的事后模拟来比较几种简短的选择策略和 PROMIS CAT 与总项目库得分。与全库分数相比，所有简式和 CAT 都产生了高度相关的分数，但 CAT 在几乎所有标准上都优于每个静态简式。然而，简短的选择策略的表现仅比 CAT 稍差。通过使用两阶段分支测试格式，可以减少静态形式中观察到的性能差距。使用校准的一维库中的多个多分项目来测量抑郁症状产生了 CAT，与静态简短形式相比，其效率略高。两阶段半自适应测试策略的效率非常接近 CAT，值得进一步考虑和研究。
Short-form patient-reported outcome measures are popular because they minimize patient burden. We assessed the efficiency of static short forms and computer adaptive testing (CAT) using data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project. We evaluated the 28-item PROMIS depressive symptoms bank. We used post hoc simulations based on the PROMIS calibration sample to compare several short-form selection strategies and the PROMIS CAT to the total item bank score. Compared with full-bank scores, all short forms and CAT produced highly correlated scores, but CAT outperformed each static short form in almost all criteria. However, short-form selection strategies performed only marginally worse than CAT. The performance gap observed in static forms was reduced by using a two-stage branching test format. Using several polytomous items in a calibrated unidimensional bank to measure depressive symptoms yielded a CAT that provided marginally superior efficiency compared to static short forms. The efficiency of a two-stage semi-adaptive testing strategy was so close to CAT that it warrants further consideration and study.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Passos, Valeria Lima;Berger, Martijn P. F.;Tan, Frans E.
通讯作者：
Tan, Frans E.
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Choi SW;Swartz RJ
通讯作者：
Swartz RJ
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Orlando, M;Thissen, D
通讯作者：
Thissen, D
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Reise, SP;Henson, JM
通讯作者：
Henson, JM
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Gibbons, Robert D.;Weiss, David J.;Immekus, Jason C.
通讯作者：
Immekus, Jason C.