What's in a score: A longitudinal investigation of scores based on item response theory and classical test theory for the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire in cognitively normal and impaired older adults.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1037/neu0000914
Mark A Dubbelman, Merel C Postema, Roos J Jutten, John E Harrison, Craig W Ritchie, André Aleman, Frank Jan de Jong, Benjamin D Schalet, Caroline B Terwee, Wiesje M van der Flier, Philip Scheltens, Sietske A M Sikkes
{"title":"What's in a score: A longitudinal investigation of scores based on item response theory and classical test theory for the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire in cognitively normal and impaired older adults.","authors":"Mark A Dubbelman, Merel C Postema, Roos J Jutten, John E Harrison, Craig W Ritchie, André Aleman, Frank Jan de Jong, Benjamin D Schalet, Caroline B Terwee, Wiesje M van der Flier, Philip Scheltens, Sietske A M Sikkes","doi":"10.1037/neu0000914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to investigate whether item response theory (IRT)-based scoring allows for a more accurate, responsive, and less biased assessment of everyday functioning than traditional classical test theory (CTT)-based scoring, as measured with the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this longitudinal multicenter study including cognitively normal and impaired individuals, we examined IRT-based and CTT-based score distributions and differences between diagnostic groups using linear regressions, and investigated scale attenuation. We compared change over time between scoring methods using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes for time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two thousand two hundred ninety-four participants were included (66.6 ± 7.7 years, 54% female): <i>n</i> = 2,032 (89%) with normal cognition, <i>n</i> = 93 (4%) with subjective cognitive decline, <i>n</i> = 79 (3%) with mild cognitive impairment, and <i>n</i> = 91 (4%) with dementia. At baseline, IRT-based and CTT-based scores were highly correlated (<i>r</i> = -0.92). IRT-based scores showed less scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. In a subsample of <i>n</i> = 1,145 (62%) who were followed for a mean of 1.3 (<i>SD</i> = 0.6) years, IRT-based scores declined significantly among cognitively normal individuals (unstandardized coefficient [<i>B</i>] = -0.15, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.03], effect size = -0.02), whereas CTT-based scores did not (<i>B</i> = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41], effect size = 0.02). In the other diagnostic groups, effect sizes of change over time were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IRT-based scores were less affected by scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. With regard to responsiveness, IRT-based scores showed more signal than CTT-based scores in early disease stages, highlighting the IRT-based scores' superior suitability for use in preclinical populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":19205,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000914","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to investigate whether item response theory (IRT)-based scoring allows for a more accurate, responsive, and less biased assessment of everyday functioning than traditional classical test theory (CTT)-based scoring, as measured with the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire.

Method: In this longitudinal multicenter study including cognitively normal and impaired individuals, we examined IRT-based and CTT-based score distributions and differences between diagnostic groups using linear regressions, and investigated scale attenuation. We compared change over time between scoring methods using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes for time.

Results: Two thousand two hundred ninety-four participants were included (66.6 ± 7.7 years, 54% female): n = 2,032 (89%) with normal cognition, n = 93 (4%) with subjective cognitive decline, n = 79 (3%) with mild cognitive impairment, and n = 91 (4%) with dementia. At baseline, IRT-based and CTT-based scores were highly correlated (r = -0.92). IRT-based scores showed less scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. In a subsample of n = 1,145 (62%) who were followed for a mean of 1.3 (SD = 0.6) years, IRT-based scores declined significantly among cognitively normal individuals (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.15, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.03], effect size = -0.02), whereas CTT-based scores did not (B = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41], effect size = 0.02). In the other diagnostic groups, effect sizes of change over time were similar.

Conclusions: IRT-based scores were less affected by scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. With regard to responsiveness, IRT-based scores showed more signal than CTT-based scores in early disease stages, highlighting the IRT-based scores' superior suitability for use in preclinical populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分数的意义基于项目反应理论和经典测试理论,对认知正常和受损老年人的阿姆斯特丹日常生活活动工具问卷评分进行纵向调查。
目的我们的目的是研究基于项目反应理论(IRT)的评分是否比基于传统经典测验理论(CTT)的评分更准确、反应更迅速、偏差更小,正如阿姆斯特丹日常生活工具活动问卷所测量的那样:在这项多中心纵向研究中,我们对认知能力正常和受损的个体进行了研究,利用线性回归分析了基于 IRT 和基于 CTT 的评分分布以及诊断组之间的差异,并对量表衰减进行了调查。我们使用线性混合模型比较了不同计分方法随时间的变化,并对时间进行了随机截距和斜率:共纳入 2294 名参与者(66.6 ± 7.7 岁,54% 为女性):n = 2,032 人(89%)认知正常,n = 93 人(4%)主观认知下降,n = 79 人(3%)轻度认知障碍,n = 91 人(4%)痴呆。基线时,基于 IRT 的评分和基于 CTT 的评分高度相关(r = -0.92)。与 CTT 评分相比,IRT 评分的量表衰减较小。在平均随访 1.3 (SD = 0.6) 年的 n = 1,145 (62%) 个子样本中,认知正常者的 IRT 评分显著下降(非标准化系数 [B] = -0.15,95% 置信区间,95% CI [-0.28, -0.03],效应大小 = -0.02),而 CTT 评分没有下降(B = 0.20,95% CI [-0.02, 0.41],效应大小 = 0.02)。在其他诊断组中,随时间变化的效应大小相似:结论:与 CTT 评分相比,IRT 评分受量表衰减的影响较小。在反应性方面,基于IRT的评分在疾病早期阶段比基于CTT的评分显示出更多的信号,这突出表明基于IRT的评分更适合用于临床前人群。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology
Neuropsychology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology publishes original, empirical research; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and theoretical articles on the relation between brain and human cognitive, emotional, and behavioral function.
期刊最新文献
Getting oriented: Redefining attention deficits in Parkinson's disease. Association between social networks and cognition among middle-aged and older adults in rural India. Corpus callosum structure and auditory interhemispheric transfer in spina bifida myelomeningocele. Executive function is associated with the development of math performance in children born at <30 weeks' gestation or <1250 g birthweight. Is hyperactivity in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) a functional response to demands on specific executive functions or cognitive demands in general?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1