EA 4275 Biostatistics, Clinical Research and Subjective Measures in Health Sciences, Faculties of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Nantes, 1 rue Gaston Veil, BP 53508, 44035 Nantes Cedex 1, Nantes, France.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Jul 14;11:105. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-105.
Nowadays, more and more clinical scales consisting in responses given by the patients to some items (Patient Reported Outcomes - PRO), are validated with models based on Item Response Theory, and more specifically, with a Rasch model. In the validation sample, presence of missing data is frequent. The aim of this paper is to compare sixteen methods for handling the missing data (mainly based on simple imputation) in the context of psychometric validation of PRO by a Rasch model. The main indexes used for validation by a Rasch model are compared.
A simulation study was performed allowing to consider several cases, notably the possibility for the missing values to be informative or not and the rate of missing data.
Several imputations methods produce bias on psychometrical indexes (generally, the imputation methods artificially improve the psychometric qualities of the scale). In particular, this is the case with the method based on the Personal Mean Score (PMS) which is the most commonly used imputation method in practice.
Several imputation methods should be avoided, in particular PMS imputation. From a general point of view, it is important to use an imputation method that considers both the ability of the patient (measured for example by his/her score), and the difficulty of the item (measured for example by its rate of favourable responses). Another recommendation is to always consider the addition of a random process in the imputation method, because such a process allows reducing the bias. Last, the analysis realized without imputation of the missing data (available case analyses) is an interesting alternative to the simple imputation in this context.
如今,越来越多的临床量表由患者对一些项目的反应组成(患者报告的结果-PRO),并用基于项目反应理论的模型,特别是用 Rasch 模型进行验证。在验证样本中,缺失数据很常见。本文的目的是比较十六种处理缺失数据的方法(主要基于简单插补),在 Rasch 模型对 PRO 进行心理计量验证的背景下。比较了用于 Rasch 模型验证的主要指标。
进行了一项模拟研究,允许考虑几种情况,特别是缺失值是否具有信息性以及缺失数据的比率。
几种插补方法对心理计量指标产生偏差(通常,插补方法人为地提高了量表的心理计量质量)。特别是基于个人平均分数(PMS)的方法就是这种情况,这是实践中最常用的插补方法。
应避免使用几种插补方法,特别是 PMS 插补。从一般角度来看,重要的是使用一种既考虑患者能力(例如通过其得分来衡量),又考虑项目难度(例如通过其有利反应率来衡量)的插补方法。另一个建议是始终考虑在插补方法中添加随机过程,因为该过程可以减少偏差。最后,在这种情况下,不进行缺失数据插补(可用案例分析)的分析是简单插补的一个有趣替代方案。