Psychometric testing and validation (Multi-trait scaling and IRT)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 A Parsimonious Patient-Reported Measure of Care Coordination Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine September 27, 2013 Los Angeles, CA
Advertisements

1 Evaluating Multi-Item Scales Using Item-Scale Correlations and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. RCMAR.
Multivariate Methods EPSY 5245 Michael C. Rodriguez.
Primer on Evaluating Reliability and Validity of Multi-Item Scales Questionnaire Design and Testing Workshop October 25, 2013, 3:30-5:00pm Wilshire.
Data validation for use in SEM
Statistics for Education Research Lecture 10 Reliability & Validity Instructor: Dr. Tung-hsien He
User Study Evaluation Human-Computer Interaction.
SAS PROC IRT July 20, 2015 RCMAR/EXPORT Methods Seminar 3-4pm Acknowledgements: - Karen L. Spritzer - NCI (1U2-CCA )
Tests and Measurements Intersession 2006.
6. Evaluation of measuring tools: validity Psychometrics. 2012/13. Group A (English)
Measurement Models: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
Measurement Issues by Ron D. Hays UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research (June 30, 2008, 4:55-5:35pm) Diabetes & Obesity.
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. Questionnaire Design and Testing.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. Questionnaire Design and Testing.
Psychometric Evaluation of Questionnaire Design and Testing Workshop December , 10:00-11:30 am Wilshire Suite 710 DATA.
Considerations in Comparing Groups of People with PROs Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine May 6, 2008, 3:45-5:00pm ISPOR, Toronto, Canada.
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. Questionnaire.
Overview of Item Response Theory Ron D. Hays November 14, 2012 (8:10-8:30am) Geriatrics Society of America (GSA) Pre-Conference Workshop on Patient- Reported.
Evaluating Multi-item Scales Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine/Health Services Research HS237A 11/10/09, 2-4pm,
Chapter 14 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. Exploratory Factor Analysis  Statistical technique for dealing with multiple variables  Many variables are reduced.
® The Use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to Support the Use of Subscores for a Large-Scale Student Outcomes Assessment Rochelle S. Michel, Ph.D. Evaluation.
Statistics & Evidence-Based Practice
Evaluating Patient-Reports about Health
FACTOR ANALYSIS & SPSS.
Traditional descriptors Multi-item measures Preference measurement
Reliability Analysis.
Ron D. Hays September 12, 2006 Network Testing ~ 5 or 6pm
Psychometric Evaluation of Items Ron D. Hays
Further Validation of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II: Gender Measurement Invariance Harmon, K. A., Shigemoto, Y., Borowa, D., Robitschek, C.,
QDET2, Miami, FL, Hibiscus A
Chapter 15 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Improving Student Engagement Through Audience Response Systems
Background and Context Research Question and Proposition
INTRODUCTORY STATISTICS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
A Different Way to Think About Measurement Development:
Psychometric Properties of an Acculturation Scale:
UCLA Department of Medicine
Evaluating Patient-Reports about Health
UCLA Department of Medicine
Evaluating Multi-Item Scales
Analysis of Survey Results
Ron D. Hays GIM-HSR Friday Noon Seminar Series November 4, 2016
Evaluation of measuring tools: validity
Item Analysis: Classical and Beyond
Evaluating IRT Assumptions
Final Session of Summer: Psychometric Evaluation
Lecture 6 Structured Interviews and Instrument Design Part II:
Dr. Chin and Dr. Nettelhorst Winter 2018
First study published in JOGS.
PSY 614 Instructor: Emily Bullock, Ph.D.
Validation of the Portuguese DSM-IV-MR-J
Kozan, K. , & Richardson, J. C. (2014)
EPSY 5245 EPSY 5245 Michael C. Rodriguez
Reliability Analysis.
Funded via a small grant from the National Cancer institute
Sean C. Wright Illinois Institute of Technology, APTMetrics
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
How can one measure intelligence?
Data validation for use in SEM
Item Analysis: Classical and Beyond
Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of Multi-Item Scales
Evaluating Multi-Item Scales
Evaluating Multi-item Scales
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I
Evaluating Multi-item Scales
Item Analysis: Classical and Beyond
Evaluating Multi-Item Scales
UCLA Department of Medicine
Patient-reported Outcome Measures
Presentation transcript:

Psychometric testing and validation (Multi-trait scaling and IRT) Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. November 7, 2018 (1:00-2:30 pm) Instrument Design Workshop (7th Floor Conf. Room) https://drhays.dgsom.ucla.edu/pages/presentations

Acknowledgements Yelba Castellon, Jonathan Grotts, Kenrick Duru Prediabetes Informed Decisions and Education (PRIDE) study included a measure of patient activation. My time supported by NIA Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research (P30-AG021684).

Patient Activation Measures https://www.insigniahealth.com/products/pam-survey “Some authors charge fees for using published instruments; fees can include a licensing fee, administration fee, and/or fee for obtaining scoring algorithms. For example, use of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), developed with funding by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, requires a licensing fee. As a result, researchers are looking for other alternatives such as the Altarium Consumer Engagement (ACE) Measure” (p. 108). Hays, R. D., Weech-Maldonado, R., Teresi, J. A., Wallace, S. P., & Stewart, A. L. (2018). Copyright restrictions versus open access to survey instruments. Medical Care, 56 (2), 107-110.

Altarum Consumer Engagement (ACE) Questionnaire Gruman et al (2010) “actions individuals must take to obtain the greatest benefit from the health care services available to them” 21 items/4 multi-item scales Commitment (6 items) Informed choice (5 items) Navigation (5 items) Ownership (5 items) Likert response scale Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Agree, Strongly agree --> Duke, C. C. et al. (2015). Patient, 8, 559-568.

12 ACE items q1) I spend a lot of time learning about health. q2) Even when life is stressful, I know I can continue to do the things that keep me healthy. q3) I feel comfortable talking to my doctor about my health. q4) When I work to improve my health, I succeed. q5) I have brought my own information about my health to show my doctor. q6) When choosing a new doctor, I look for information online. q7) I can stick with plans to exercise and eat a healthy diet. q8) I compare doctors using official ratings about how well their patients are doing. q9) I have lots of experience using the health care system. q10) When choosing a new doctor, I look for official ratings based on patient health. q11) Different doctors give different advice; its up to me to choose whats right for me. q12) I handle my health well.

Aims Evaluate the dimensionality of 12 of the ACE items in a sample of 515 pre-diabetics. 58 years old (median), 56% female, 46% white, 15% AA, 19% Asian/Pacific Islander, 20% other Estimate ACE scores using item response theory (IRT) graded response model. Examine item category response curves, item and scale information. Assess construct validity of ACE scale scores.

Item-Level Statistics

Reliability Formulas 0.74 Model Reliability Intraclass Correlation Two-way random Two-way mixed One-way BMS = Between Ratee Mean Square N = n of ratees WMS = Within Mean Square k = n of items or raters JMS = Item or Rater Mean Square EMS = Ratee x Item (Rater) Mean Square 8

Exploratory Factor Analysis Polychoric correlations Correlation between two underlying normally distributed continuous variables. Three factors suggested by scree plot and Tucker and Lewis reliability coefficient = 0.95

Exploratory Factor Loadings and Correlations (Promax Rotation) Commitment to Health Doctor Choice Learning about Health

Factor 1: Commitment to Health q2) Even when life is stressful, I know I can continue to do the things that keep me healthy. q4) When I work to improve my health, I succeed. q7) I can stick with plans to exercise and eat a healthy diet. q12) I handle my health well. All 4 of the above items are in 6-item ACE commitment scale

Factor 2: Doctor Choice q6) When choosing a new doctor, I look for information online. q8) I compare doctors using official rating about how well their patients are doing. q10) When choosing a new doctor, I look for official ratings based on patient health. All 3 of the above items are in 5-item ACE informed choice scale

Factor 3: Learning About Health q1) I spend a lot of time learning about health. q3) I feel comfortable talking to my doctor about my health. q5) I have brought my own information about my health to show my doctor. q9) I have lots of experience using the health care system. q11) Different doctors give different advice; its up to me to choose what's right for me. Four of the above items are in the 5-item ACE navigation scale. Q1 is in the the 5-item ACE informed choice scale.

Multi-trait Scaling (n = 483, SE = 0.05)

CFA Fit Indices 1 - Non-normed fit index: Normed fit index: 2  -  2 Normed fit index: Non-normed fit index: Comparative fit index: null model  2 2 2   null null - model df df null model  2 null - 1 df null 2  - df 1 - model model  - 2 df null null RMSEA = SQRT (λ2 – df)/SQRT (df (N – 1)) CFI >=0.95 and RMSEA <=0.06 15

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Polychoric* Correlations) CFI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.062 Commitment to Health Doctor Choice Learning about Health

Bifactor Model Loadings (CFI = 0.91 and RMSEA = 0.08) Item General Group 1 Doctor Choice Group 3 Q2 0.65 0.33   Q7 0.24 Q6 0.28 0.50 Q8 0.43 0.70 Q10 0.34 0.77 Q1 0.51 0.26 Q3 0.41 Q9 0.30 0.66 Q11 Q4 0.62 Q5 0.40 Q12 0.64

People and Items on Same z-score metric Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 -3 3

Item Response Theory (IRT) IRT graded response model estimates relationship between a person’s response Yi to the question (i) and his or her level on the latent construct (): e a(-b)/(1 + e a(-b)) bik = how difficult it is to have a score of k or more . on item (i). ai = item discrimination.

Item Characteristic Curve

Commitment to Health 0 =Strongly disagree; 1 = disagree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree

Doctor Choice 0 =Strongly disagree; 1 = disagree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree

Learning about Health Here we see Q3 (I feel comfortable talking to my doctor about my health) is problematic. “Agree” (brown) was picked by a lot of people with high activation and almost no one with high levels of activation picked strongly agree (purple). Also a large proportion of people picked “neither agree nor disagree” so this question may not be performing the way we want, suggesting it may be a good idea to remove it and rescore without it. 0 =Strongly disagree; 1 = disagree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree

Commitment to Health (Slopes) q2) Even when life is stressful, I know I can continue to do the things that keep me healthy. (1.72) q4) When I work to improve my health, I succeed. (1.47) q7) I can stick with plans to exercise and eat a healthy diet. (2.05) q12) I handle my health well. (1.37)

Doctor Choice (Slopes) q6) When choosing a new doctor, I look for information online. (1.29) q8) I compare doctors using official ratings about how well their patients are doing. (2.69) q10) When choosing a new doctor, I look for official ratings based on patient health. (3.28)

Learning About Health (Slopes) q1) I spend a lot of time learning about health. (1.08) q3) I feel comfortable talking to my doctor about my health. (0.93) q9) I have lots of experience using the health care system. (1.48) q11) Different doctors give different advice; its up to me to choose what's right for me. (0.97)

Ordinal Alpha (Diagonal) and Product-moment Correlations Among ACE Scales (Graded Response Model) Commitment to Health Doctor Choice Learning about Health 0.75 0.32 0.78 0.39 0.28 0.59 .

Internal Consistency Reliability (Coefficient Alpha) (MSbms – MSems)/MSbms Ordinal alpha http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings14/2042-2014.pdf https://drhays.dgsom.ucla.edu/pages/programs_utilities

Reliability = (Info – 1) / Info

Commitment to Health For example, in this curve, maximum reliability is around 3 so roughly R= (3-1/3=2/3 or .67)

Doctor Choice For doctor choice we can use 4-1/4=3/4=0.75

Learning About Health 1.25-1/1.25=0.2

Excellent or Very Good Health Statistically Significant Spearman Correlations of ACE Scale Scores with Other Variables D > High School PHQ-5 >4 Excellent or Very Good Health Obese (BMI>= 30 kg/m2) Commitment to Health (ACE) 0.12 -0.31 0.31 -0.18 Commitment to Health (ACE*) 0.14 -0.27 0.20 Doctor Choice (ACE) 0.08 Doctor Choice (ACE*) 0.09 Learning about Health (ACE) Learning about Health (ACE*) Cohen’s effect size rules of thumb (d = 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8): small = 0.100; medium = 0.243, and large = 0.371 r = d / [(d2 + 4).5] = 0.8 / [(0.82 + 4).5] = 0.8 / [(0.64 + 4).5] = 0.8 / [( 4.64).5] = 0.8 / 2.154 = 0.371

https://altarum.org/publications/right-place-right-time drhays@ucla.edu