Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24664356›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

Item response theory analysis of the patient satisfaction with cancer-related care measure: a psychometric investigation in a multicultural sample of 1,296 participants.

Pascal Jean-Pierre, Ying Cheng, Electra Paskett, Can Shao, Kevin Fiscella, Paul Winters, Patient Navigation Research Program

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Patient Satisfaction with Navigator Interpersonal Relationship (PSN-I): item-level psychometrics using IRT analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pascal Jean-PierreDepartment of Psychology, Neurocognitive Translational Research Lab, Cancer Control & Survivorship Program, University of Notre Dame, 109 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA, PJeanPierre@nd.edu.
Ying Cheng
Electra Paskett
Can Shao
Kevin Fiscella
Paul Winters
Patient Navigation Research Program
University of Notre Dame · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
Chicago Cancer Navigation ProjectU01CA116875 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ROSEN, STEVEN TERRY · 2005 to 2011
$4.5M
RCT of Primary Care-based Patient Navigation-ActivationU01CA116924 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI FISCELLA, KEVIN ANTHONY · 2005 to 2011
$4.4M
"Patient Navigation in the SafetyNet: CONNECTeDD"U01CA116892 · NCI · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI FREUND, KAREN · 2005 to 2010
$4.3M
DC City-wide Patient Navigation Research ProgramU01CA116937 · NCI · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PATIERNO, STEVEN R · 2005 to 2011
$4.1M
Improving Patient Outcomes Through System NavigationU01CA116903 · NCI · DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITY · PI RAICH, PETER CHRISTIAN · 2005 to 2011
$3.8M
Patient Navigation Research ProgramU01CA116885 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI DUDLEY, DONALD J · 2005 to 2010
$3.3M
Patient Navigator ProgramU01CA117281 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR &RES INST · PI ROETZHEIM, RICHARD G · 2005 to 2009
$3.1M
Northwest Tribal Cancer Navigator ProgramU01CA116925 · NCI · NORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HLTH BD · PI WARREN-MEARS, VICTORIA ANN · 2005 to 2009
$3.0M
Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute-K12 ProgramKL2TR000163 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2012 to 2013
$720k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108NCI NIH HHS 1R25CA 10261801A1NCI NIH HHS 3U01CA116924-03S1NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116875NCI NIH HHS U01CA116875NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116885NCI NIH HHS U01CA116885NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116892NCI NIH HHS U01CA116892NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116903NCI NIH HHS U01CA116903NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116924NCI NIH HHS U01CA116924-01NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116925NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116937NCI NIH HHS U01CA116937NCI NIH HHS U01 CA117281NCI NIH HHS U01CA117281NIMHD NIH HHS L60 MD001957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe developed and validated a Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care (PSCC) measure using classical test theory methods. The present study applied item response theory (IRT) analysis to determine item-level psychometric properties, facilitate development of short forms, and inform future applications for the PSCC.

methodsWe applied unidimensional IRT models to PSCC data from 1,296 participants (73% female; 18 to 86 years). An unconstrained graded response model (GRM) and a Rasch Model were fitted to estimate indices for model comparison using likelihood ratio (LR) test and information criteria. We computed item and latent trait parameter estimates, category and operating characteristic curves, and tested information curves for the better fitting model.

resultsThe GRM fitted the data better than the Rasch Model (LR = 828, df = 17, p < 0.001). The log-likelihood (-17,390.38 vs. -17,804.26) was larger, and the AIC and BIC were smaller for the GRM compared to the Rash Model (AIC = 34,960.77 vs. 35,754.73; BIC = 35,425.80 vs. 36,131.92). Item parameter estimates (IPEs) showed substantial variation in items' discriminating power (0.94 to 2.18). Standard errors of the IPEs were small (threshold parameters mostly around 0.1; discrimination parameters 0.1 to 0.2), confirming the precision of the IPEs.

conclusionThe GRM provides precise IPEs that will enable comparable scores from different subsets of items, and facilitate optimal selections of items to estimate patients' latent satisfaction level. Given the large calibration sample, the IPEs can be used in settings with limited resources (e.g., smaller samples) to estimate patients' satisfaction.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient NavigationPatient SatisfactionPsychometricsUnited StatesVulnerable PopulationsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24664356
PMCPMC4256077
OpenAlexW2038108713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.