Search

Showing total 2 results
Start Over Topic hypertension, pulmonary
2 results

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

Author

Twiss J, McKenna SP, Graham J, Swetz K, Sloan J, and Gomberg-Maitland M

Subjects
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Benchmarking, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records, Hypertension, Pulmonary psychology, Outcome Assessment, Health Care methods, Outcome Assessment, Health Care statistics & numerical data, Paper, Patients psychology, Quality of Life psychology
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 (nā€‰=ā€‰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.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

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

Author

J Graham, James Twiss, Keith M. Swetz, M Gomberg-Maitland, Stephen P. McKenna, and Jeff A. Sloan

Subjects
Electronic validation, Adult, Male, Paper, Patients, Operations research, Item response theory (IRT), Hypertension, Pulmonary, behavioral disciplines and activities, Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR), Measurement equivalence, Young Adult, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Activity limitation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Statistics, Electronic Health Records, Humans, Medicine, 030212 general & internal medicine, Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review, Equivalence (measure theory), Aged, Quality of Life Research, Aged, 80 and over, Rasch model, business.industry, Research, 030503 health policy & services, Age Factors, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Rasch analysis, Mean age, Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Differential item functioning, humanities, Benchmarking, Sample size determination, Quality of Life, Female, 0305 other medical science, business, human activities
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.

Published
2016