Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes
Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11136-007-9175-7
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Lipscomb, Joseph
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hays, Ron D.;Lipscomb, Joseph
目的回顾NCI/DIA“基于现代测量理论和计算机自适应测试改进健康结果评估”的会议，并建议下一步使用项目反应理论(IRT)评估健康结果。背景近年来，健康结果研究人员对IRT方法的兴趣和使用水平显著提高。2004年6月24-25日的NCI/DIA会议是第一次系统地研究将IRT应用于卫生成果领域的许多具有挑战性的问题之一。方法根据会议报告，我们确定了对IRT在卫生成果中的未来应用具有重要意义的五个问题。结果这五个关键问题如下：(1)学术界、政府和行业之间的合作；(2)共同与独特的题库；(3)教育和建立IRT的使用和报告标准；(4)展示IRT的价值；以及(5)继续努力改善IRT软件的用户友好性。结论继续推进IRT研究需要学术界、政府机构和产业界共同努力，设计和开展IRT研究。与来自多个机构的研究人员合作开发的共同题库可能对该领域非常有价值。为独立评估结果的使用和报告建立协商一致的标准将有助于该方法的使用者和消费者。清楚地记录IRT如何能够导致更好的患者报告的结果测量和对实质性问题的更准确的理解是至关重要的。学术界、政府和工业界应继续当前的工作，以增强IRT软件的用户友好性。
Objectives We review the NCI/DIA conference, "Improving health outcomes assessment based on modern measurement theory and computerized adaptive testing," and suggest next steps in use of item response theory (IRT) to assess health outcomes.Background In recent years the level of interest and use of IRT methods has increased dramatically among health outcomes researchers. The NCI/DIA conference on June 24-25, 2004, was one of the first systematic opportunities to examine many challenging issues in applying IRT to the health outcomes field.Method Based on the conference presentations, we identified five issues important to future applications of IRT to health outcomes.Results The five key issues are as follows: (1) collaboration between academia, government and industry; (2) common versus unique item banks; (3) educating and establishing standards for use and reporting of IRT; (4) demonstrating the value of IRT; and (5) continuing efforts to improve the user friendliness of IRT software.Conclusions Moving forward will require a collaborative effort between academia, government agencies, and industry to design and conduct IRT research. A common item bank developed with collaboration from investigators from multiple institutions could be very valuable to the field. The establishment of consensus standards for use and reporting of IRT results would help users and consumers of the methodology. Clear documentation of how IRT can lead to better patient-reported outcome measures and more accurate understanding of substantive issues is essential. Academia, government and industry should continue current work to enhance the user-friendliness of the IRT software.