ArticleApplied psychological measurement2014
Expediting Clinical and Translational Research via Bayesian Instrument Development.
Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation–Questionnaire (BLUE-Q) through an innovative Bayesian questionnaire validation approachJournal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2024Article
- Bayesian Hierarchical Factor Analysis for Efficient Estimation across Race/Ethnicity.Revista Colombiana de estadistica · 2021Article
- Confirmatory Factor Analysis Alternative: Free, Accessible CBID Software.Western journal of nursing research · 2018Article
- A novel method for expediting the development of patient-reported outcome measures and an evaluation across several populations.Applied psychological measurement · 2016Article
- A novel method for expediting the development of patient-reported outcome measures and an evaluation of its performance via simulation.BMC medical research methodology · 2015Article
- Response to Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015): "Conceptions of reliability revisited and practical recommendations".Nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Developing valid and reliable instruments is crucial but costly and time-consuming in health care research and evaluation. The Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have set up guidelines for developing patient-reported outcome instruments. However, the guidelines are not applicable to cases of small sample sizes. Instead of using an exact estimation procedure to examine psychometric properties, our Bayesian Instrument Development (BID) method integrates expert data and participant data into a single seamless analysis. Using a novel set of priors, we use simulated data to compare BID to classical instrument development procedures and test the stability of BID. To display BID to non-statisticians, a graphical user interface based on R and WINBUGS is developed and demonstrated with data on a small sample of heart failure patients. Costs were saved by eliminating the need for unnecessary continuation of data collection for larger samples as required by the classical instrument development approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.