Conference on Improving Health Outcomes Assessment:
|
|
Conference Program, Summary Papers, and Presentations
Download the conference program in PDF format.
Summary papers and presentations from conference experts are provided below. Access a table
of key reference terms (PDF) for the papers.
Pre-Conference Introductory Workshop
Wednesday, June 23, 1:00-5:00 pm
Item Response Theory (IRT) and Applications of IRT for Improving Health Outcomes Measurement
|
Instructor:
Steve P. Reise, PhD
Professor
UCLA Department of Psychology
|
This introductory workshop began with a discussion of the basics of item response theory (IRT) modeling, including
discussions of defining model parameters, model assumptions, item and test characteristic and information curves,
frequently-used IRT models, and differences between traditional and IRT methods. The course discussed the role
of IRT modeling in health outcomes research of evaluating and developing questionnaires, identifying differential
item functioning, linking instruments, developing item banks, and assessing change. Critical issues for applying
this methodology in health outcomes research was discussed.
|
Start of Scientific Meeting
Day One (Thursday, June 24)
8:00 am
|
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Ron D. Hays, PhD
Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Senior Scientist, RAND Corporation
|
8:20 am
|
Conference Charge
Joseph Lipscomb PhD
Branch Chief, Outcomes Research
National Cancer Institute
Eleanor M. Perfetto, PhD
President, Drug Information Association
The Weinberg Group, Inc.
|
8:40 am
|
The Science of Health Outcomes Measurement
Neil K. Aaronson, PhD
[Summary Paper (91 KB)] [Presentation (194
KB)]
Head, Division of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology
The Netherlands Cancer Institute
This session reviewed the current state of the science in health outcomes measurement. What defines a "quality"
or psychometrically-strong measure? What are the limitations of the instruments we use today? Are we satisfied
with the analytical tools used to evaluate our measures?
|
9:20 am
|
The Traditional and Modern Approaches to Outcomes Measurement
Ronald K. Hambleton, PhD
[Summary Paper (132 KB)] [Presentation (339 KB)]
Distinguished University Professor
School of Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
This session defined and contrasted both the traditional approach (i.e., CTT) and the modern measurement (i.e.,
IRT) approach for data analysis and scoring. Also, it discussed the limitations and strengths of these methods
in health outcomes measurement.
|
10:10 am
|
Refreshment Break
|
10:40 am
|
Building and Revising Outcome Measures: Evaluating Item and Scale Functioning with the IRT model
Bryce B. Reeve, PhD
[Summary Paper (208 KB)] [Presentation
(244 KB)]
Psychometrician, Outcomes Research
National Cancer Institute
Maria Orlando, PhD
[Summary Paper (198 KB)]
Behavioral Scientist
RAND Corporation
This session discussed how IRT may be used to evaluate both the properties of the items and the scale and to
inform questionnaire revisions. What added information do we learn about the data from IRT modeling?
|
11:40 am
|
Assessing Measurement Equivalence Across Populations: Differential Item Functioning (DIF)
Jeanne A. Teresi, EdD, PhD
[Summary Paper (230 KB)] [Presentation (134
KB)]
Senior Research Associate
Columbia University
Leo S. Morales, MD, PhD
[Summary Paper (364 KB)] [Presentation (1.3
MB)]
Assistant Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Behavioral Scientist, RAND Corporation
John A. Fleishman, PhD
[Summary Paper (239 KB)] [Presentation
(702 KB)]
Senior Social Scientist, Center for Financing Access and Cost Trends
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
This session discussed the importance for evaluating DIF for determining measurement equivalence of item content
across instruments administered to different populations (differing by race, age, gender, etc.) or instruments
administered in different languages. How will DIF assessment benefit health disparities research?
|
1:00 PM
|
Luncheon and Review Posters
|
2:20 PM
|
Comparing or Combining Scores from Multiple Instruments: Instrument Linking (Equating)
Neil J. Dorans, PhD
[Summary Paper (130 KB)] [Presentation (92 KB)]
Principal Measurement Statistician in the Research & Development Division
Educational Testing Service
This presentation addressed several issues associated with the linking of health outcomes. What is meant by
outcomes linking and equating? How does equating differ from other types of linking? What are common data collection
designs used to capture data for outcomes linking. What are some of the standard statistical procedures used
to link outcomes directly? What assumptions do they make? What role does IRT play in linking outcomes? What
assumptions do IRT methods make? Illustrations of different kinds of linkages were provided.
|
3:00 PM
|
Developing Tailored Instruments: Item Banking and Computerized Adaptive Assessment
Chih-Hung Chang, PhD
[Summary Paper (181 KB)] [Presentation (348 KB)]
Assistant Professor
Northwestern University
Jakob B. Bjorner, MD, PhD
[Summary Paper (406 KB)] [Presentation (136
KB)]
Deputy Chief Science Officer
QualityMetric Incorporated
David Thissen, PhD
[Summary Paper (170 KB)] [Presentation (184
KB)]
Professor, Quantitative Program, Department of Psychology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
This session discussed the critical role that IRT plays to develop the item bank and why CTT methods are inappropriate
for such a task. What challenges/decisions will we have to make in choosing both the appropriate IRT model and
the constructs we want to measure? How can we balance the assumptions of the unidimensional IRT models with
the multifaceted nature of the constructs measured in health outcomes research?
|
4:45 PM
|
Reception and Poster Session
|
Day Two (Friday, June 25)
8:00 am
|
The IRT Data Analysis Project: In parallel sessions, two research teams demonstrated the strengths and
challenges of applying IRT modeling for evaluating data in health outcomes research and behavioral science.
The sessions provided detailed examples of the logic and flow of analyses, the tackling of technical problems,
and the interpretation of results. Examples of input and output files along with analysis summaries were provided
to the audience.
Demonstrate item and scale analysis, differential item functioning, instrument linking, and item banking
using data collected on four HRQOL questionnaires. |
Three applied presentations using Behavioral Consortium data to illustrate IRT applications. |
Research Team:
Karon F. Cook, PhD, VA (Team Leader)
Cayla R. Teal, PhD, VA (Team Leader)
Jakob B. Bjorner, MD, PhD, QualityMetric
David Cella, PhD, Northwestern U.
Paul K. Crane, MD, MPH, U. of Washington
Chih-Hung Chang, PhD, Northwestern U.
Laura Gibbons, PhD, U. of Washington
Ron D. Hays, PhD, UCLA, RAND
Colleen A. McHorney, PhD, Indiana U.
Katja Ocepek-Welikson, M.Phil., NYC Hebrew Home for the Aged
Anastasia E. Raczek, PhD, QualityMetric
Bryce B. Reeve, PhD, NCI
Jeanne A. Teresi, EdD, PhD, Columbia U. |
Research Team:
Louise C. Mâsse, PhD, NCI
Mark R. Wilson, PhD, U.C. Berkeley
Diane D. Allen, U.C. Berkeley |
|
10:00 am
|
Refreshment Break
|
10:30 am
|
The Future of Outcomes Measurement: Item Banking, Tailored Short-Forms, and Computerized-Adaptive Assessment
David Cella, PhD
[Summary Paper (235 KB)] [Presentation (1.2
MB)]
Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Northwestern University Medical School
Director, Center on Outcomes Research and Education
John E. Ware, PhD
[Presentation (1.06 MB)]
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Science Officer
QualityMetric Incorporated
This session discussed how computerized-adaptive testing (CAT) will revolutionize the way we measure outcomes
through the development of tailored short forms and computerized-adaptive tests. The speakers presented results
from their own work and discussed how item banking (short forms and CATs) will benefit the measurement of patient-reported
outcomes in observational studies, clinical trials, and clinical practice.
|
12:00 PM
|
Luncheon
|
1:15 PM
|
Critical Issues for Developing and Maintaining Item Banks and CATs
Bringing the Concept into Reality: The Idea of a National Item Bank
Colleen A. McHorney, PhD
[Presentation (1.8 MB)]
Professor, Indiana University School of Medicine
Senior Scientist, Regenstrief Institute, Inc.
Jeff A. Sloan, PhD
[Presentation (1.7 MB)]
Lead Statistician and Chair of Quality of Life Research Committee
Mayo Clinic, Rochester
Dennis A. Revicki, PhD
[Summary Paper (80 KB)] [Presentation (30
KB)]
Director - Center for Health Outcomes Research & Sr. Research Leader, MEDTAP Int.
Adjunct Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical School.
Lawrence J. Fine, MD, DrPH
[Presentation (184 KB)]
Medical Advisor, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
National Institutes of Health
Robert T. O'Neill, PhD
[Summary Paper (198 KB)] [Presentation
(291 KB)]
Director, Office of Biometrics,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA
Laurie B. Burke, RPh, MPH
[Presentation (636 KB)]
Director, Study Endpoints and Label Development
Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA
This session discussed the feasibility for developing and implementing item banks and CATs in observational
and clinical settings. What critical issues should we address and how can we overcome the barriers to issues
like proprietary rights? What are the costs and amount of work that are required to create these products? What
role should government (e.g., NIH, FDA) and private entities play in this effort?
|
3:15 PM
|
Refreshment Break
|
3:30 PM
|
Next Steps in Health Outcomes and Behavioral Science
Ron D. Hays, PhD
[Summary Paper (101 KB)] [Presentation (25 KB)]
Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Senior Scientist, RAND Corporation
Margaret Rothman, PhD
[Presentation (15 KB)]
Executive Director, Health Economics
Johnson & Johnson
Joseph Lipscomb PhD
[Summary Paper (167 KB)] [Presentation (67
KB)]
Branch Chief, Outcomes Research
National Cancer Institute
Peter M. Fayers, PhD
[Summary Paper (120 KB)] [Presentation (82 KB)]
Professor of Medical Statistics
University of Aberdeen Medical School
For both health outcomes and behavioral researchers, speakers made recommendations for how their field of study
will benefit by incorporating the methods discussed over the past two days. What demonstrations are necessary
to explore the potential benefits of item banking and CATs to health outcomes measurement? What role should
academia, industry, and government play to push this arena forward?
|
|
|