The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment

The use of item banks and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) begins with clear definitions of important outcomes, and references those definitions to specific questions gathered into large and well-studied pools, or “banks” of items. Items can be selected from the bank to form customized short scales, or can be administered in a sequence and length determined by a computer programmed for precision and clinical relevance. Although far from perfect, such item banks can form a common definition and understanding of human symptoms and functional problems such as fatigue, pain, depression, mobility, social function, sensory function, and many other health concepts that we can only measure by asking people directly. The support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as witnessed by its cooperative agreement with measurement experts through the NIH Roadmap Initiative known as PROMIS (www.nihpromis.org), is a big step in that direction. Our approach to item banking and CAT is practical; as focused on application as it is on science or theory. From a practical perspective, we frequently must decide whether to re-write and retest an item, add more items to fill gaps (often at the ceiling of the measure), re-test a bank after some modifications, or split up a bank into units that are more unidimensional, yet less clinically relevant or complete. These decisions are not easy, and yet they are rarely unforgiving. We encourage people to build practical tools that are capable of producing multiple short form measures and CAT administrations from common banks, and to further our understanding of these banks with various clinical populations and ages, so that with time the scores that emerge from these many activities begin to have not only a common metric and range, but a shared meaning and understanding across users. In this paper, we provide an overview of item banking and CAT, discuss our approach to item banking and its byproducts, describe testing options, discuss an example of CAT for fatigue, and discuss models for long term sustainability of an entity such as PROMIS. Some barriers to success include limitations in the methods themselves, controversies and disagreements across approaches, and end-user reluctance to move away from the familiar.

[1]  J. B. Olsen,et al.  THE FOUR GENERATIONS OF COMPUTERIZED EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT , 1988 .

[2]  Mark D. Reckase,et al.  Adaptive Testing: The Evolution of a Good Idea , 1989 .

[3]  R. Linn Educational measurement, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[4]  Gary J. Lautenschlager,et al.  Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? , 1990 .

[5]  N K Aaronson,et al.  Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. , 1998, European journal of cancer.

[6]  F. Wolfe,et al.  Listening to the patient: a practical guide to self-report questionnaires in clinical care. , 1999, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[7]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Innovations in Computerized Assessment , 1999 .

[8]  J. Ware,et al.  Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. , 2000, Medical care.

[9]  L. Carlson,et al.  Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients , 2000, Psycho-oncology.

[10]  Cornelis A.W. Glas,et al.  Computerized adaptive testing : theory and practice , 2000 .

[11]  C. McHorney,et al.  Equating Health Status Measures With Item Response Theory: Illustrations With Functional Status Items , 2000, Medical care.

[12]  S. Embretson,et al.  Item response theory for psychologists , 2000 .

[13]  Peter J. Pashley,et al.  Chapter 1 Item Selection and Ability Estimation in Adaptive Testing , 2000 .

[14]  P. Selby,et al.  Self-reported quality of life of individual cancer patients: concordance of results with disease course and medical records. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  I J Higginson,et al.  Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  L. Carlson,et al.  Computerized Quality-of-Life Screening in a Cancer Pain Clinic , 2001, Journal of palliative care.

[17]  David Cella,et al.  Assessing quality of life in research and clinical practice. , 2002, Oncology.

[18]  P. Selby,et al.  Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor–patient interactions in oncology , 2002, British Journal of Cancer.

[19]  D. Cella,et al.  Quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients in Spain , 2002, Multiple sclerosis.

[20]  N. Aaronson,et al.  Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[21]  R. Gershon,et al.  Item response theory and health-related quality of life in cancer , 2003, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[22]  D. Cella,et al.  Issues in the development of an item bank. , 2003, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  Quality of life assessment for low literacy Latinos: a new multimedia program for self-administration. , 2003, The Journal of oncology management : the official journal of the American College of Oncology Administrators.

[24]  David Cella,et al.  Developing an initial physical function item bank from existing sources. , 2003, Journal of applied measurement.

[25]  A. Dowson,et al.  Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[26]  D. Osoba,et al.  Patients' experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. , 1998, Quality of Life Research.

[27]  David Cella,et al.  Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: An illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[28]  Galina Velikova,et al.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  D. Cella,et al.  Anorexia/cachexia‐related quality of life for children with cancer , 2005, Cancer.

[30]  J. V. Von Roenn,et al.  An item response theory-based pain item bank can enhance measurement precision. , 2005, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[31]  J. V. Von Roenn,et al.  An item bank was created to improve the measurement of cancer-related fatigue. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  J. V. Von Roenn,et al.  Expansion of a physical function item bank and development of an abbreviated form for clinical research. , 2006, Journal of applied measurement.

[33]  Tamar Frankel [The theory and the practice...]. , 2001, Tijdschrift voor diergeneeskunde.