Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™)

Background: Measurement of headache impact is important in clinical trials, case detection, and the clinical monitoring of patients. Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) of headache impact has potential advantages over traditional fixed-length tests in terms of precision, relevance, real-time quality control and flexibility. Objective: To develop an item pool that can be used for a computerized adaptive test of headache impact. Methods: We analyzed responses to four well-known tests of headache impact from a population-based sample of recent headache sufferers (n = 1016). We used confirmatory factor analysis for categorical data and analyses based on item response theory (IRT). Results: In factor analyses, we found very high correlations between the factors hypothesized by the original test constructers, both within and between the original questionnaires. These results suggest that a single score of headache impact is sufficient. We established a pool of 47 items which fitted the generalized partial credit IRT model. By simulating a computerized adaptive health test we showed that an adaptive test of only five items had a very high concordance with the score based on all items and that different worst-case item selection scenarios did not lead to bias. Conclusion: We have established a headache impact item pool that can be used in CAT of headache impact.

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

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

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

[4]  L. Rips,et al.  Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. , 1987, Science.

[5]  H. Swaminathan,et al.  Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Logistic Regression Procedures , 1990 .

[6]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[7]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Fundamentals of Item Response Theory , 1991 .

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

[9]  L. Milne.  Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  W F Stewart,et al.  Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. , 1992, JAMA.

[11]  A. Stewart,et al.  Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach , 1992 .

[12]  Michael J. Zieky,et al.  Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. , 1993 .

[13]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. , 1993 .

[14]  V. Pfaffenrath.  [Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan]. , 1993, Fortschritte der Medizin.

[15]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  Contributions of survey research to the understanding of memory , 1993 .

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

[17]  R. Lipton,et al.  Migraine heterogeneity. Disability, pain intensity, and attack frequency and duration. , 1994, Neurology.

[18]  H. Wainer,et al.  Differential Item Functioning. , 1994 .

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

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

[21]  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.

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

[23]  Modifications indices for the 2-pL , 1997 .

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

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

[26]  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.

[27]  E. Muraki.  Stepwise Analysis of Differential Item Functioning Based on Multiple‐Group Partial Credit Model , 1999 .

[28]  B. Zumbo.  A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELING AS A UNITARY FRAMEWORK FOR BINARY AND LIKERT-TYPE (ORDINAL) ITEM SCORES , 1999 .

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

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

[31]  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.

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

[33]  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.

[34]  R. Lipton,et al.  Migraine: Diagnosis and assessment of disability , 2000 .

[35]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer , 2000 .

[36]  Neil J. Dorans,et al.  Item Response Theory, Item Calibration, and Proficiency Estimation , 2000 .

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

[38]  W. Stewart,et al.  Headache-related disability in the management of migraine , 2001, Neurology.

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

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

[41]  R. Lipton,et al.  Migraine--current understanding and treatment. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[43]  Jakob B. Bjorner,et al.  The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical studies , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[44]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) to the metric of traditional headache scales , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[45]  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.

[46]  C. McHorney,et al.  Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? , 1995, Quality of Life Research.