ArticlePsychometrika2021
Commentary: Matching IRT Models to PRO Constructs- Modeling Alternatives, and Some Thoughts on What Makes a Model Different.
Article in Psychometrika, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary is an attempt to present some additional alternatives to the suggestions made by Reise et al. (2021). IRT models as they are used for patient-reported outcome (PRO) scales may not be fully satisfactory when used with commonly made assumptions. The suggested change to an alternative parameterization is critically reflected with the intent to initiate discussion around more comprehensive alternatives that allow for more complex latent structures having the potential to be more appropriate for PRO scales as they are applied to diverse populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34342818What 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.