Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effects of scanning position on evaluation of cerebral atrophy level: assessed by item response theory

  • Mahsin, Md (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Calgary) ;
  • Zhao, Yinshan (MS/MRI Research Group, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia)
  • Received : 2016.07.20
  • Accepted : 2016.11.03
  • Published : 2016.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Cerebral atrophy affects the brain and is a common feature of patients with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's diseases. It is evaluated by the radiologist or reader based on patient's history, age and the space between the brain and the skull as indicated by magnetic resonance (MR) images. A total of 70 patients were scanned in the supine and prone positions before three radiologist assessed their atrophy level. This study examined the radiologist's assessment of the cerebral atrophy level using a graded response model of item response theory (IRT). A graded response model (GRM) is fitted to our data and then item-fit and person-fit statistics are evaluated to assess the fitted model. Our analysis found that the cerebral atrophy level is better discriminated by readers in the prone position because all item slopes were greater than 2 at this position, versus the supine position where all the slope parameters were less than 1. However, the thresholds are very similar for the first reader and are quite different for the second and third readers because the scanning position affects readers differently as the category threshold estimates vary considerably between the readers..

Keywords

References

  1. Adams R, Rosier M, Campbell D, and Ruffin R (2005). Assessment of an asthma quality of life scale using item-response theory, Respirology, 10, 587-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1843.2005.00754.x
  2. Andrich D (1978). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers, Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 581-594. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167800200413
  3. Bock RD (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories, Psychometrika, 37, 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291411
  4. Cai L (2010). High-dimensional exploratory item factor analysis by a Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro algorithm, Psychometrika, 75, 33-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9136-x
  5. Cattell RB (1966). The screen test for the number of factors, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  6. Cattell RB (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences, Plenum, New York.
  7. Chalmers RP (2012). mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment, Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-29.
  8. Coleman MJ, Cook S, Matthysse S, Barnard J, Lo Y, Levy DL, Rubin DB, and Holzman PS (2002). Spatial and object working memory impairments in schizophrenia patients: a Bayesian itemresponse theory analysis, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 425-435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.3.425
  9. Drasgow F, Levine MV, andWilliams EA (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00817.x
  10. Edelen MO and Reeve BB (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement, Quality of Life Research, 16, 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
  11. Embretson, SE and Reise SP (2000). Item Response Theoryfor Psychologists, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
  12. Hays RD, Liu H, Spritzer K, and Cella D (2007). Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the medical outcomes study, Medical Care, 45, S32-S38. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000246649.43232.82
  13. Hays RD, Morales LS, and Reise SP (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century, Medical Care, 38, II28-II42.
  14. Holman R, Glas CA, and de Haan RJ (2003). Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory, Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 390-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00061-8
  15. Kang T and Chen TT (2007). An Investigation of the Performance of the Generalized S - $X^2$ Item-Fit Index for Polytomous IRT Models, ACT Research, Columbus, IN.
  16. Karas G, Scheltens P, Rombouts S, van Schijndel R, Klein M, Jones B, van der Flier W, Vrenken H, and Barkhof F (2007). Precuneus atrophy in early-onset Alzheimer's disease: a morphometric structural MRI study, Neuroradiology, 49, 967-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-007-0269-2
  17. Loehlin JC (2004). Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis (4th ed), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
  18. Masters GN (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring, Psychometrika, 47, 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272
  19. McCullough D, Levy L, DiChiro G, and Johnson D (1990). Toward the prediction of neurological injury from tethered spinal cord: investigation of cord motion with magnetic resonance, Pediatric Neurosurgery, 16, 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000120494
  20. McDonald RP (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1981.tb00621.x
  21. Muraki E (1992). A generalized partial credit model: application of an em algorithm, Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169201600206
  22. Muraki E (1997). A generalized partial credit model. In van der Linden WJ and Hambleton RK (Eds), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 153-164), Springer, New York.
  23. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  24. Rasch G (1960). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Achievement Tests, Danish Institute for Educational Research, Copenhagen.
  25. Rasch G (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology, In Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, CA, 321-333.
  26. Reise SP (1990). A comparison of item-and person-fit methods of assessing model-data fit in IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169001400202
  27. Reise SP (2016). The emergence of item response theory models and the patient reported outcomes measurement information systems, Austrian Journal of Statistics, 38, 211-220. https://doi.org/10.17713/ajs.v38i4.274
  28. Reise SP and Flannery P (1996). Assessing person-fit on measures of typical performance, Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0901_3
  29. Reise SP and Waller NG (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153553
  30. Reise SP,Widaman KF, and Pugh RH (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance, Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552
  31. Samejima F (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores, Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34, 100.
  32. Samejima F (1972). A general model for free-response data, Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 37, 68.
  33. Samejima F (1997). Graded response model. In van der Linden WJ and Hambleton RK (Eds), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 85-100), Springer, New York.
  34. Thissen D and Steinberg L (1986). A taxonomy of item response models, Psychometrika, 51, 567-577. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295596
  35. Witkamp TD, Vandertop WP, Beek FJ, Notermans NC, Gooskens RH, and van Waes PF (2001). Medullary cone movement in subjects with a normal spinal cord and in patients with a tethered spinal cord 1, Radiology, 220, 208-212. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.220.1.r01jl06208
  36. Yen WM (1981). Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model, Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168100500212