Skip to main content
Log in

Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health status assessment is frequently used to evaluate the combined impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and its treatment on functioning and well-being from the patient's perspective. No single health status measure can efficiently cover the range of problems in functioning and well-being experienced across HIV disease stages. Item response theory (IRT), item banking and computer adaptive testing (CAT) provide a solution to measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across different stages of HIV disease. IRT allows us to examine the response characteristics of individual items and the relationship between responses to individual items and the responses to each other item in a domain. With information on the response characteristics of a large number of items covering a HRQoL domain (e.g. physical function, and psychological well-being), and information on the interrelationships between all pairs of these items and the total scale, we can construct more efficient scales. Item banks consist of large sets of questions representing various levels of a HRQoL domain that can be used to develop brief, efficient scales for measuring the domain. CAT is the application of IRT and item banks to the tailored assessment of HRQoL domains specific to individual patients. Given the results of IRT analyses and computer-assisted test administration, more efficient and brief scales can be used to measure multiple domains of HRQoL for clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu AW, Rubin HR. Measuring health status and quality of life in HIV and AIDS. Psychology Health 1992; 6: 251–264.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wachtel T, Piette J, Mor V, et al. Quality of life in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection: measurement by the medical outcomes study instrument. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 129–137.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Testa MA, Lenderking WR. Quality of life considerations in AIDS clinical trials. In: Finkelstein DM, Schoenfeld DA, eds. AIDS Clinical Trials: Guidelines for Design and Analysis. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1995: 213–241.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lubeck DP, Fries JF. Health status among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus: a community-based study. Med Care 1993; 31: 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Revicki DA, Murray M, Wu AW. Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV disease patients. Med Care 1995; 33: AS173–AS182.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cunningham WE, Hays RD, Williams KW et al. Access to medical care and health-related quality of life for low income persons with symptomatic human immunodeficiency virus. Med Care 1995; 33: 739–754.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wright B, Stone M. Best Test Design. Chicago: Mesa Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wright B, Masters J. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hays RD, Sayer P. Item response theory. In: Staquet M, Hays RD, Berzon R, eds. Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. London: Oxford University Press, in press.

  12. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wu AW, Revicki DA, Jacobson D, Malitz FE. Evidence for the reliability, validity and usefulness of the MOS-HIV Health Survey. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 481–493.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wu AW, Hays R, Kelly S, Bozzette S. Applications of the MOS HRQL measures in HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 531–534

    Google Scholar 

  15. Santor DA, Ramsey JO, Zuroff DC. Nonparametric item analysis of the Beck Depression Inventory: evaluating gender item bias and response option weights. Psychol Assess 1994; 6: 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cella DF, Lloyd SR, Wright BD. Cross-cultural instrument equating: current research and future directions. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 707–715.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bice TW. Comments on health indicators: methodological perspectives. Int J Health Service 1976; 6: 509–520

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Revicki, D.A., Cella, D.F. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 6, 595–600 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018420418455

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018420418455

Navigation