• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对评估父母对其子女牙齿护理认知的多项目量表进行经典测试理论和项目反应理论分析。

Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents' perceptions of their children's dental care.

作者信息

Hays Ron D, Brown Julie, Brown Lorraine U, Spritzer Karen L, Crall James J

机构信息

RAND Health Program, Santa Monica, California, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11 Suppl 3):S60-8. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245144.90229.d0.

DOI:10.1097/01.mlr.0000245144.90229.d0
PMID:17060837
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Classical test theory and item response theory methods can provide useful and potentially different insights into the performance of items in a survey designed to elicit parental perceptions of dental care delivered to children in publicly funded programs.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to illustrate the use of both classical test theory and item response theory to evaluate survey instruments.

METHODS

: Using 2 years of cross-sectional data collected from enrollees in dental plans in 2001 and 2002, we studied families with children between ages 4 to 18 who were enrolled in 1 of 5 dental plans for 12 months or longer. The 2001 survey yielded a total of 2536 usable surveys and the 2002 survey yielded 2232 useable surveys (50% and 46% response rate, respectively) for a total sample size of 4036 children who used the plan for most or all of their care.

MEASURES

The beta version of the CAHPS(R) dental care survey instrument includes 2 global rating items (dental care, dental plan) and multi-item scales assessing getting needed care, getting care quickly, communication with dental providers, office staff, and customer service.

RESULTS

Item missing data rates were low. Item-scale correlations for hypothesized scales (corrected for overlap) tended to exceed correlations of items with other scales. Classical test theory analyses identified 5 of 10 communication items that did not perform well. Internal consistency reliability estimates for the scales ranged from 0.73 to 0.86. Item response theory painted a more promising picture than classical test theory for the 2 communication items that assessed access to an interpreter when needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The beta CAHPS(R) dental survey performed well and the revised instrument is recommended for future studies. Classical test theory and item response theory can provide complementary information about survey items.

摘要

背景

经典测试理论和项目反应理论方法能够为一项旨在获取家长对公共资助项目中儿童牙科护理看法的调查中各项目的表现提供有用且可能不同的见解。

目的

我们试图说明如何运用经典测试理论和项目反应理论来评估调查工具。

方法

利用2001年和2002年从牙科保险计划参保者那里收集的两年横断面数据,我们研究了年龄在4至18岁且参加了5个牙科保险计划之一达12个月或更长时间的有孩子的家庭。2001年的调查共获得2536份可用调查问卷,2002年的调查获得2232份可用调查问卷(回复率分别为50%和46%),总样本量为4036名在大部分或全部护理中使用该保险计划的儿童。

测量指标

CAHPS®牙科护理调查工具的测试版包括2个总体评分项目(牙科护理、牙科保险计划)以及评估获得所需护理、快速获得护理、与牙科服务提供者、办公室工作人员和客户服务沟通的多项目量表。

结果

项目缺失数据率较低。假设量表的项目-量表相关性(经重叠校正)往往超过项目与其他量表的相关性。经典测试理论分析确定了10个沟通项目中有5个表现不佳。各量表的内部一致性信度估计值在0.73至0.86之间。对于评估必要时获得口译员帮助的2个沟通项目,项目反应理论比经典测试理论描绘出了更乐观的前景。

结论

CAHPS®牙科调查测试版表现良好,建议修订后的工具用于未来研究。经典测试理论和项目反应理论可为调查项目提供补充信息。

相似文献

1
Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents' perceptions of their children's dental care.对评估父母对其子女牙齿护理认知的多项目量表进行经典测试理论和项目反应理论分析。
Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11 Suppl 3):S60-8. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245144.90229.d0.
2
Development of a multidimensional measure for recurrent abdominal pain in children: population-based studies in three settings.儿童复发性腹痛多维测量方法的开发:在三种环境下开展的基于人群的研究
Pediatrics. 2005 Feb;115(2):e210-5. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1412.
3
Development of a psychometric scale to assess satisfaction with dental care among Sri Lankans.开发一种心理测量量表以评估斯里兰卡人对牙科护理的满意度。
Community Dent Health. 2009 Sep;26(3):150-6.
4
Insights into problems obtaining care believed necessary as measured by the Medicaid Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS).通过医疗补助健康计划消费者评估调查(CAHPS)衡量,对获得被认为必要的医疗服务时遇到的问题的洞察。
Am J Manag Care. 2003 Dec;9(12):797-803.
5
Older adults' drug benefit beliefs: construct definition and measure development.老年人的药物效益信念:概念定义与测量方法的开发
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2008 Mar;4(1):23-36. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.02.003.
6
Psychometric properties and cross-cultural equivalence of the Arabic Social Capital Scale: instrument development study.阿拉伯社会资本量表的心理测量特性及跨文化等效性:工具开发研究
Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Jan;46(1):44-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.07.010. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
7
The impacts of the State Children's Health Insurance Program on children who enroll: findings from ten states.儿童健康保险计划对参保儿童的影响:来自十个州的调查结果
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1520-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00707.x.
8
Development and evaluation of an instrument to measure parental satisfaction with quality of care in neonatal follow-up.用于测量家长对新生儿随访护理质量满意度的工具的开发与评估
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2009 Feb;30(1):57-65. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e31819670fa.
9
Made in the USA: the import of American Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Surveys (CAHPS) into the Dutch social insurance system.美国制造:将美国医疗计划消费者评估调查(CAHPS)引入荷兰社会保险体系。
Eur J Public Health. 2006 Dec;16(6):652-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckl023. Epub 2006 Mar 8.
10
eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale.eHEALS:电子健康素养量表。
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27.

引用本文的文献

1
Item analysis on the quality of life scale for anxiety disorders QLICD-AD(V2.0) based on classical test theory and item response theory.基于经典测验理论和项目反应理论的焦虑症患者生活质量量表QLICD-AD(V2.0)的项目分析
Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2024 May 10;23(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12991-024-00504-2.
2
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) survey of experiences with ambulatory healthcare for Asians and non-Hispanic Whites in the United States.美国针对亚裔和非西班牙裔白人的门诊医疗服务体验进行的医疗服务提供者及系统消费者评估(CAHPS®)调查。
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021 Mar 24;5(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00303-3.
3
Development and testing of a patient-centered dental home assessment for low-income families.
开发和测试以低收入家庭为中心的患者牙科之家评估。
J Public Health Dent. 2019 Sep;79(3):253-263. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12323. Epub 2019 Jun 17.
4
Development of the Sexual Minority Adolescent Stress Inventory.性少数青少年压力量表的编制
Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 15;9:319. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00319. eCollection 2018.
5
Reducing respondent burden: validation of the Brief Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire.减轻受访者负担:《视力损害简要影响问卷》的验证
Qual Life Res. 2017 Feb;26(2):479-488. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1395-2. Epub 2016 Aug 24.
6
Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey.消费者评估医疗保健提供者和系统(CAHPS®)临床医生和成人团体就诊调查的心理测量特性。
Med Care. 2012 Nov;50 Suppl(Suppl):S28-34. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31826cbc0d.
7
Measurement invariance of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal quality-of-life instrument among modes of administration.功能评估癌症治疗-结直肠癌生活质量量表在不同给药方式下的测量不变性。
Qual Life Res. 2013 Aug;22(6):1415-26. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0272-x. Epub 2012 Sep 28.
8
Reducing patient burden to the FACT-Melanoma quality-of-life questionnaire.降低 FACT-Melanoma 生活质量问卷的患者负担。
Melanoma Res. 2012 Apr;22(2):158-63. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e3283511dbf.
9
Cross - cultural adaptation and preliminary validation of the Turkish version of the early childhood oral health impact scale among 5-6-year-old children.跨文化调适与早期儿童口腔健康影响量表土耳其文版在 5-6 岁儿童中的初步验证。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Dec 22;9:118. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-118.
10
Rasch analysis of the Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ).心理门诊患者体验问卷(POPEQ)的 Rasch 分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Sep 28;10:282. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-282.