Hays Ron D, Brown Julie, Brown Lorraine U, Spritzer Karen L, Crall James J
RAND Health Program, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11 Suppl 3):S60-8. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245144.90229.d0.
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.
We sought to illustrate the use of both classical test theory and item response theory to evaluate survey instruments.
: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。