|Title||An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2009|
|Authors||Kocalevent, RD, Rose, M, Becker, J, Walter, OB, Fliege, H, Bjorner, JB, Kleiber, D, Klapp, BF|
|Journal||Journal of Clinical Epidemiology|
|ISBN Number||1878-5921 (Electronic)0895-4356 (Linking)|
|Keywords||*Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Confidence Intervals, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Quality of Health Care/*standards, Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Sickness Impact Profile, Stress, Psychological/*diagnosis/psychology, Treatment Outcome|
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a first computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the measurement of stress perception (Stress-CAT), in terms of the two dimensions: exposure to stress and stress reaction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Item response theory modeling was performed using a two-parameter model (Generalized Partial Credit Model). The evaluation of the Stress-CAT comprised a simulation study and real clinical application. A total of 1,092 psychosomatic patients (N1) were studied. Two hundred simulees (N2) were generated for a simulated response data set. Then the Stress-CAT was given to n=116 inpatients, (N3) together with established stress questionnaires as validity criteria. RESULTS: The final banks included n=38 stress exposure items and n=31 stress reaction items. In the first simulation study, CAT scores could be estimated with a high measurement precision (SE<0.32; rho>0.90) using 7.0+/-2.3 (M+/-SD) stress reaction items and 11.6+/-1.7 stress exposure items. The second simulation study reanalyzed real patients data (N1) and showed an average use of items of 5.6+/-2.1 for the dimension stress reaction and 10.0+/-4.9 for the dimension stress exposure. Convergent validity showed significantly high correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The Stress-CAT is short and precise, potentially lowering the response burden of patients in clinical decision making.