ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
Enhancing Measurement Precision of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Item Response Theory.
Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential for informing clinical decision-making and guiding health policy. Item Response Theory (IRT) enhances measurement by providing detailed evidence on item discrimination, difficulty, fairness, and precision, consistent with COSMIN guidelines. A quantitative, cross-sectional design was employed, involving 500 adult patients attending outpatient facilities across public, private, and community-based healthcare centers in southern Ghana. Stratified random sampling was used to ensure representativeness across settings. Psychometric evaluation combined CTT analyzes Cronbach's alpha, item-total correlations, and factor analysis with IRT modeling, specifically the graded response model (GRM). CTT analyses indicated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .84), while IRT modeling (graded response model) showed higher reliability (marginal reliability = 0.91) and revealed patterns of precision across the health spectrum. IRT-based scores were meaningfully associated with treatment adherence (β = .45), quality of life (β = .41), and self-reported health status (β = .38), illustrating predictive validity. Differential item functioning analyses indicated limited subgroup bias. Integrating CTT and IRT strengthens the rigor, precision, and fairness of PRO measurement. IRT-calibrated instruments demonstrate practical value for clinical monitoring and health system evaluation and are recommended for routine implementation in diverse healthcare settings.
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.