Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 1/2016

13.08.2015

Development of an item bank for computerized adaptive test (CAT) measurement of pain

verfasst von: Morten Aa. Petersen, Neil K. Aaronson, Wei-Chu Chie, Thierry Conroy, Anna Costantini, Eva Hammerlid, Marianne J. Hjermstad, Stein Kaasa, Jon H. Loge, Galina Velikova, Teresa Young, Mogens Groenvold

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes should ideally be adapted to the individual patient while maintaining comparability of scores across patients. This is achievable using computerized adaptive testing (CAT). The aim here was to develop an item bank for CAT measurement of the pain domain as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

Methods

The development process consisted of four steps: (1) literature search, (2) formulation of new items and expert evaluations, (3) pretesting and (4) field-testing and psychometric analyses for the final selection of items.

Results

In step 1, we identified 337 pain items from the literature. Twenty-nine new items fitting the QLQ-C30 item style were formulated in step 2 that were reduced to 26 items by expert evaluations. Based on interviews with 31 patients from Denmark, France and the UK, the list was further reduced to 21 items in step 3. In phase 4, responses were obtained from 1103 cancer patients from five countries. Psychometric evaluations showed that 16 items could be retained in a unidimensional item bank. Evaluations indicated that use of the CAT measure may reduce sample size requirements with 15–25 % compared to using the QLQ-C30 pain scale.

Conclusions

We have established an item bank of 16 items suitable for CAT measurement of pain. While being backward compatible with the QLQ-C30, the new item bank will significantly improve measurement precision of pain. We recommend initiating CAT measurement by screening for pain using the two original QLQ-C30 pain items. The EORTC pain CAT is currently available for “experimental” purposes.
Nächster Artikel Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Green, E., Zwaal, C., Beals, C., Fitzgerald, B., Harle, I., Jones, J., et al. (2010). Cancer-related pain management: A report of evidence-based recommendations to guide practice. Clinical Journal of Pain, 26(6), 449–462.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Noble, B., Clark, D., Meldrum, M., ten Have, H., Seymour, J., Winslow, M., et al. (2005). The measurement of pain, 1945–2000. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 29(1), 14–21.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage.
4.
van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
5.
Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
6.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Giesinger, J. M., Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Conroy, T., et al. (2011). Cross-cultural development of an item list for computer-adaptive testing of fatigue in oncological patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 9, 19. doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-9-19.
8.
Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Chie, W.-C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., et al. (2010). Development of computerised adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 dimensions—General approach and initial results for physical functioning. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 1352–1358.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Chie, W.-C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., et al. (2011). Development of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning dimension. Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 479–490.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Petersen, M. Aa., Giesinger, J. M., Holzner, B., Arraras, J. I., Conroy, T., Gamper, E. M., et al. (2013). Psychometric evaluation of the EORTC computerized adaptive test (CAT) fatigue item pool. Quality of Life Research, 22(9), 2443–2454.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Petersen, M. Aa., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Chie, W.-C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., et al. (2012). The EORTC computer-adaptive tests measuring physical functioning and fatigue exhibited high levels of measurement precision and efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(3), 330–339.CrossRef
12.
Thamsborg, L. H., Petersen, M. Aa., Aaronson, N. K., Chie, W.-C., Costantini, A., Holzner, B., et al. (2014). Development of a lack of appetite item bank for computer-adaptive testing (CAT). Support Care Cancer, Epub 14 November 14.
13.
Fayers, P., & Bottomley, A. (2002). Quality of life research within the EORTC—the EORTC QLQ—C30. European organisation for research and treatment of cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 38(Suppl 4), S125–S133.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ, 324(7351), 1417–1419.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
16.
IASP. (1979). Pain terms: A list with definitions and notes on usage (in Editorial: The Need of A Taxonomy). Pain, 6(3), 249–252.
17.
WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.
18.
Holen, J. C., Hjermstad, M. J., Loge, J. H., Fayers, P. M., Caraceni, A., De Conno, F., et al. (2006). Pain assessment tools: Is the content appropriate for use in palliative care? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 32(6), 567–580.PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Dewolf, L., Koller, M., Velikova, G., Johnson, C., Scott, N., & Bottomley, A. (2009). EORTC quality of life group translation procedure (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
21.
Koller, M., Aaronson, N. K., Blazeby, J., Bottomley, A., Dewolf, L., Fayers, P., et al. (2007). Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. European Journal of Cancer, 43(12), 1810–1820.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Johnson, C., Aaronson, N., Blazeby, J. M., Bottomley, A., Fayers, P., Koller, M., et al. (2011). EORTC quality of life group—guidelines for developing questionnaire modules (4th ed.). Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
23.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1996). PARSCALE—IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
24.
Muthen, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115–132.CrossRef
25.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2002). Mplus user’s guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
26.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). Scree Test for Number of Factors. Multivariate behavioral research, 1(2), 245–276.CrossRef
27.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
28.
Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 913–933.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Bjorner, J. B., Klapp, B. F., & Rose, M. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2277–2291.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Muraki, E. (1997). A generalized partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153–168). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
31.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
32.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis—Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA PRESS.
33.
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
34.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
French, A. W., & Miller, T. R. (1996). Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(3), 315–332.CrossRef
36.
Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Aaronson, N. K., Conroy, T., Cull, A., et al. (2003). Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 373–385.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Bjorner, J. B., Kreiner, S., Ware, J. E., Damsgaard, M. T., & Bech, P. (1998). Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1189–1202.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hart, D. L., Deutscher, D., Crane, P. K., & Wang, Y. C. (2009). Differential item functioning was negligible in an adaptive test of functional status for patients with knee impairments who spoke English or Hebrew. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1067–1083.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
40.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874.CrossRef
41.
Chen, W. H., Revicki, D. A., Lai, J. S., Cook, K. F., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Linking pain items from two studies onto a common scale using item response theory. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 38(4), 615–628.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(suppl 1), 85–94.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Noonan, V. K., Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Choi, S. W., Kim, J., & Amtmann, D. (2012). Measuring fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: Creating a crosswalk between the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale and the PROMIS Fatigue Short Form. Quality of Life Research, 21(7), 1123–1133.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Development of an item bank for computerized adaptive test (CAT) measurement of pain
verfasst von
Morten Aa. Petersen
Neil K. Aaronson
Wei-Chu Chie
Thierry Conroy
Anna Costantini
Eva Hammerlid
Marianne J. Hjermstad
Stein Kaasa
Jon H. Loge
Galina Velikova
Teresa Young
Mogens Groenvold
Publikationsdatum
13.08.2015
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1069-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Quality of Life Research 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Impact of untreated dental caries and its clinical consequences on the oral health-related quality of life of schoolchildren aged 8–10 years

OriginalPaper

Quality of life in rehabilitation outpatients: normal values and a comparison with the general Dutch population and psychiatric patients

OriginalPaper

Structural and functional measures of social relationships and quality of life among older adults: does chronic disease status matter?

OriginalPaper

Pretreatment quality of life as a prognostic factor for early survival and functional outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer

Brief Communication

Validation of the Italian version of the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for children

OriginalPaper

Evaluating quality of life outcomes following joint replacement: psychometric evaluation of a short form of the WHOQOL-Bref

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise