The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical studies

Background: Item response theory (IRT) is a powerful framework for analyzing multiitem scales and is central to the implementation of computerized adaptive testing. Objectives: To explain the use of IRT to examine measurement properties and to apply IRT to a questionnaire for measuring migraine impact – the Migraine Specific Questionnaire (MSQ). Methods: Data from three clinical studies that employed the MSQ-version 1 were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis for categorical data and by IRT modeling. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses showed very high correlations between the factors hypothesized by the original test constructions. Further, high item loadings on one common factor suggest that migraine impact may be adequately assessed by only one score. IRT analyses of the MSQ were feasible and provided several suggestions as to how to improve the items and in particular the response choices. Out of 15 items, 13 showed adequate fit to the IRT model. In general, IRT scores were strongly associated with the scores proposed by the original test developers and with the total item sum score. Analysis of response consistency showed that more than 90% of the patients answered consistently according to a unidimensional IRT model. For the remaining patients, scores on the dimension of emotional function were less strongly related to the overall IRT scores that mainly reflected role limitations. Such response patterns can be detected easily using response consistency indices. Analysis of test precision across score levels revealed that the MSQ was most precise at one standard deviation worse than the mean impact level for migraine patients that are not in treatment. Thus, gains in test precision can be achieved by developing items aimed at less severe levels of migraine impact. Conclusions: IRT proved useful for analyzing the MSQ. The approach warrants further testing in a more comprehensive item pool for headache impact that would enable computerized adaptive testing.

[1]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[2]  R. Lipton,et al.  Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability , 2001, Neurology.

[3]  R. Lipton,et al.  Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers , 2000, Pain.

[4]  Erling B. Andersen,et al.  Discrete Statistical Models with Social Science Applications. , 1980 .

[5]  M. Kosinski,et al.  The responsiveness of headache impact scales scored using 'classical' and 'modern' psychometric methods: A re-analysis of three clinical trials , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[6]  R. Darrell Bock,et al.  The Nominal Categories Model , 1997 .

[7]  F. Samejima.  Graded Response Model , 1997 .

[8]  C. McHorney,et al.  Generic Health Measurement: Past Accomplishments and a Measurement Paradigm for the 21st Century , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  N. Ramadan,et al.  The Henry Ford Hospital Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) , 1994, Neurology.

[10]  I. W. Molenaar,et al.  Rasch models: foundations, recent developments and applications , 1995 .

[11]  J B Bjorner,et al.  Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  D. Thissen,et al.  Likelihood-Based Item-Fit Indices for Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models , 2000 .

[13]  B. Rasmussen,et al.  The impact of migraine , 2001, Neurology.

[14]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Adaptive EAP Estimation of Ability in a Microcomputer Environment , 1982 .

[15]  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.

[16]  G. Masters.  The Partial Credit Model , 2016 .

[17]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[18]  S. Davis,et al.  MSQ: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Further investigation of the factor structure. , 1998, PharmacoEconomics.

[19]  RON D. HAYS,et al.  Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century , 2000, Medical care.

[20]  N. Ramadan,et al.  Headache Disability Inventory (HDI): Short‐term Test‐Retest Reliability and Spouse Perceptions , 1995, Headache.

[21]  R. Lipton,et al.  Epidemiology of tension-type headache. , 1998, JAMA.

[22]  R. Lipton,et al.  Reliability of an Illness Severity Measure for Headache in A Population Sample of Migraine Sufferers , 1998, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[23]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory , 1997 .

[24]  Bryan C. Hurst,et al.  Further Development and Testing of the Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life (MSQOL) Measure , 2000, Headache.

[25]  David Thissen,et al.  A taxonomy of item response models , 1986 .

[26]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm , 1981 .

[27]  D. Clayton,et al.  Statistical Models in Epidemiology , 1993 .

[28]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[29]  E. Muraki.  Information Functions of the Generalized Partial Credit Model , 1993 .

[30]  R. Lipton,et al.  Reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score in A Population-Based Sample of Headache Sufferers , 1999, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

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

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

[33]  A. Batenhorst,et al.  Sumatriptan treatment for migraine in a health maintenance organization: economic, humanistic, and clinical outcomes. , 1999, Clinical therapeutics.

[34]  David Thissen,et al.  Item Response Theory for Items Scored in Two Categories , 2001 .

[35]  David P. Miller,et al.  Impact of Oral Sumatriptan on Workplace Productivity, Health-Related Quality of Life, Healthcare Use, and Patient Satisfaction with Medication in Nurses with Migraine , 1996 .

[36]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices , 1984 .

[37]  R. Lipton,et al.  Validity of an illness severity measure for headache in a population sample of migraine sufferers , 1999, PAIN.

[38]  P. Jhingran,et al.  Development and Validation of the Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire , 1998, Headache.

[39]  P. Jhingran,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the Migraine‐Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1) , 2000, Headache.

[40]  E. Muraki.  A Generalized Partial Credit Model , 1997 .

[41]  D. Nash,et al.  Changes in resource use and outcomes for patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan: a managed care perspective. , 1999, Archives of internal medicine.

[42]  Gideon J. Mellenbergh,et al.  Conceptual Notes on Models for Discrete Polytomous Item Responses , 1995 .

[43]  K. Bollen,et al.  Pearson's R and Coarsely Categorized Measures , 1981 .

[44]  J. Ramsay.  Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation , 1991 .

[45]  D L Patrick,et al.  A New Instrument to Assess the Long‐term Quality of Life Effects From Migraine: Development and Psychometric Testing of the MSQOL , 1996, Headache.