Applying Rasch analysis to evaluate measurement equivalence of different administration formats of the Activity Limitation scale of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)

J. Twiss, S. P. McKenna, J. Graham, K. Swetz, Jeff A Sloan, M. Gomberg-Maitland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Electronic formats of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are now routinely used in clinical research studies. When changing from a validated paper and pen to electronic administration it is necessary to establish their equivalence. This study reports on the value of Rasch analysis in this process. Methods: Three groups of US pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients participated. The first completed an electronic version of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale (e-sample) and this was compared with two pen and paper administrated samples (pp1 and pp2). The three databases were combined and analysed for fit to the Rasch model. Equivalence was evaluated by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Results: The three datasets were matched randomly in terms of sample size (n=147). Mean age (years) and percentage of male respondents were as follows: e-sample (51.7, 16.0%); pp1 (50.0, 14.0%); pp2 (55.5, 40.4%). The combined dataset achieved fit to the Rasch model. Two items showed evidence of borderline DIF. Further analyses showed the inclusion of these items had little impact on Rasch estimates indicating the DIF identified was unimportant. Conclusions: Differences between the performance of the electronic and pen and paper administrations of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale were minor. The results were successful in showing how the Rasch model can be used to determine the equivalence of alternative formats of PRO measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number57
JournalHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 9 2016

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Hypertension
Sample Size
Databases
Research
Datasets
Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Keywords

  • Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)
  • Electronic validation
  • Item response theory (IRT)
  • Measurement equivalence
  • Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures
  • Rasch analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Applying Rasch analysis to evaluate measurement equivalence of different administration formats of the Activity Limitation scale of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR). / Twiss, J.; McKenna, S. P.; Graham, J.; Swetz, K.; Sloan, Jeff A; Gomberg-Maitland, M.

In: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol. 14, No. 1, 57, 09.04.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{649382504387484298dff0893f723849,
title = "Applying Rasch analysis to evaluate measurement equivalence of different administration formats of the Activity Limitation scale of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)",
abstract = "Background: Electronic formats of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are now routinely used in clinical research studies. When changing from a validated paper and pen to electronic administration it is necessary to establish their equivalence. This study reports on the value of Rasch analysis in this process. Methods: Three groups of US pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients participated. The first completed an electronic version of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale (e-sample) and this was compared with two pen and paper administrated samples (pp1 and pp2). The three databases were combined and analysed for fit to the Rasch model. Equivalence was evaluated by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Results: The three datasets were matched randomly in terms of sample size (n=147). Mean age (years) and percentage of male respondents were as follows: e-sample (51.7, 16.0{\%}); pp1 (50.0, 14.0{\%}); pp2 (55.5, 40.4{\%}). The combined dataset achieved fit to the Rasch model. Two items showed evidence of borderline DIF. Further analyses showed the inclusion of these items had little impact on Rasch estimates indicating the DIF identified was unimportant. Conclusions: Differences between the performance of the electronic and pen and paper administrations of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale were minor. The results were successful in showing how the Rasch model can be used to determine the equivalence of alternative formats of PRO measures.",
keywords = "Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR), Electronic validation, Item response theory (IRT), Measurement equivalence, Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures, Rasch analysis",
author = "J. Twiss and McKenna, {S. P.} and J. Graham and K. Swetz and Sloan, {Jeff A} and M. Gomberg-Maitland",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1186/s12955-016-0462-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "Health and Quality of Life Outcomes",
issn = "1477-7525",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Applying Rasch analysis to evaluate measurement equivalence of different administration formats of the Activity Limitation scale of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)

AU - Twiss, J.

AU - McKenna, S. P.

AU - Graham, J.

AU - Swetz, K.

AU - Sloan, Jeff A

AU - Gomberg-Maitland, M.

PY - 2016/4/9

Y1 - 2016/4/9

N2 - Background: Electronic formats of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are now routinely used in clinical research studies. When changing from a validated paper and pen to electronic administration it is necessary to establish their equivalence. This study reports on the value of Rasch analysis in this process. Methods: Three groups of US pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients participated. The first completed an electronic version of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale (e-sample) and this was compared with two pen and paper administrated samples (pp1 and pp2). The three databases were combined and analysed for fit to the Rasch model. Equivalence was evaluated by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Results: The three datasets were matched randomly in terms of sample size (n=147). Mean age (years) and percentage of male respondents were as follows: e-sample (51.7, 16.0%); pp1 (50.0, 14.0%); pp2 (55.5, 40.4%). The combined dataset achieved fit to the Rasch model. Two items showed evidence of borderline DIF. Further analyses showed the inclusion of these items had little impact on Rasch estimates indicating the DIF identified was unimportant. Conclusions: Differences between the performance of the electronic and pen and paper administrations of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale were minor. The results were successful in showing how the Rasch model can be used to determine the equivalence of alternative formats of PRO measures.

AB - Background: Electronic formats of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are now routinely used in clinical research studies. When changing from a validated paper and pen to electronic administration it is necessary to establish their equivalence. This study reports on the value of Rasch analysis in this process. Methods: Three groups of US pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients participated. The first completed an electronic version of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale (e-sample) and this was compared with two pen and paper administrated samples (pp1 and pp2). The three databases were combined and analysed for fit to the Rasch model. Equivalence was evaluated by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Results: The three datasets were matched randomly in terms of sample size (n=147). Mean age (years) and percentage of male respondents were as follows: e-sample (51.7, 16.0%); pp1 (50.0, 14.0%); pp2 (55.5, 40.4%). The combined dataset achieved fit to the Rasch model. Two items showed evidence of borderline DIF. Further analyses showed the inclusion of these items had little impact on Rasch estimates indicating the DIF identified was unimportant. Conclusions: Differences between the performance of the electronic and pen and paper administrations of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale were minor. The results were successful in showing how the Rasch model can be used to determine the equivalence of alternative formats of PRO measures.

KW - Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR)

KW - Electronic validation

KW - Item response theory (IRT)

KW - Measurement equivalence

KW - Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures

KW - Rasch analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962858024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962858024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12955-016-0462-2

DO - 10.1186/s12955-016-0462-2

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

JF - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

SN - 1477-7525

IS - 1

M1 - 57

ER -