Rasch-family models are more valuable than score-based approaches for analysing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with missing data.

The objective was to compare classical test theory and Rasch-family models derived from item response theory for the analysis of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes data with possibly informative intermittent missing items. A simulation study was performed in order to assess and compare the performance of classical test theory and Rasch model in terms of bias, control of the type I error and power of the test of time effect. The type I error was controlled for classical test theory and Rasch model whether data were complete or some items were missing. Both methods were unbiased and displayed similar power with complete data. When items were missing, Rasch model remained unbiased and displayed higher power than classical test theory. Rasch model performed better than the classical test theory approach regarding the analysis of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with possibly informative intermittent missing items mainly for power. This study highlights the interest of Rasch-based models in clinical research and epidemiology for the analysis of incomplete patient-reported outcomes data.

Assessment of score- and Rasch-based methods for group comparison of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with intermittent missing data (informative and non-informative).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the most adequate strategy for group comparison of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes in the presence of possibly informative intermittent missing data. Models coming from classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) were compared. METHODS: Two groups of patients' responses to dichotomous items with three times of assessment were simulated. Different cases were considered: presence or absence of a group effect and/or a time effect, a total of 100 or 200 patients, 4 or 7 items and two different values for the correlation coefficient of the latent trait between two consecutive times (0.4 or 0.9). Cases including informative and non-informative intermittent missing data were compared at different rates (15, 30 %). These simulated data were analyzed with CTT using score and mixed model (SM) and with IRT using longitudinal Rasch mixed model (LRM). The type I error, the power and the bias of the group effect estimations were compared between the two methods. RESULTS: This study showed that LRM performs better than SM. When the rate of missing data rose to 30 %, estimations were biased with SM mainly for informative missing data. Otherwise, LRM and SM methods were comparable concerning biases. However, regardless of the rate of intermittent missing data, power of LRM was higher compared to power of SM. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRM should be favored when the rate of missing data is higher than 15 %. For other cases, SM and LRM provide similar results.

Biases and power for groups comparison on subjective health measurements.

Subjective health measurements are increasingly used in clinical research, particularly for patient groups comparisons. Two main types of analytical strategies can be used for such data: so-called classical test theory (CTT), relying on observed scores and models coming from Item Response Theory (IRT) relying on a response model relating the items responses to a latent parameter, often called latent trait. Whether IRT or CTT would be the most appropriate method to compare two independent groups of patients on a patient reported outcomes measurement remains unknown and was investigated using simulations. For CTT-based analyses, groups comparison was performed using t-test on the scores. For IRT-based analyses, several methods were compared, according to whether the Rasch model was considered with random effects or with fixed effects, and the group effect was included as a covariate or not. Individual latent traits values were estimated using either a deterministic method or by stochastic approaches. Latent traits were then compared with a t-test. Finally, a two-steps method was performed to compare the latent trait distributions, and a Wald test was performed to test the group effect in the Rasch model including group covariates. The only unbiased IRT-based method was the group covariate Wald's test, performed on the random effects Rasch model. This model displayed the highest observed power, which was similar to the power using the score t-test. These results need to be extended to the case frequently encountered in practice where data are missing and possibly informative.

Comparison of CTT and Rasch-based approaches for the analysis of longitudinal Patient Reported Outcomes.

Health sciences frequently deal with Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) data for the evaluation of concepts, in particular health-related quality of life, which cannot be directly measured and are often called latent variables. Two approaches are commonly used for the analysis of such data: Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). Longitudinal data are often collected to analyze the evolution of an outcome over time. The most adequate strategy to analyze longitudinal latent variables, which can be either based on CTT or IRT models, remains to be identified. This strategy must take into account the latent characteristic of what PROs are intended to measure as well as the specificity of longitudinal designs. A simple and widely used IRT model is the Rasch model. The purpose of our study was to compare CTT and Rasch-based approaches to analyze longitudinal PRO data regarding type I error, power, and time effect estimation bias. Four methods were compared: the Score and Mixed models (SM) method based on the CTT approach, the Rasch and Mixed models (RM), the Plausible Values (PV), and the Longitudinal Rasch model (LRM) methods all based on the Rasch model. All methods have shown comparable results in terms of type I error, all close to 5 per cent. LRM and SM methods presented comparable power and unbiased time effect estimations, whereas RM and PV methods showed low power and biased time effect estimations. This suggests that RM and PV methods should be avoided to analyze longitudinal latent variables.

Methodological issues regarding power of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT)-based approaches for the comparison of patient-reported outcomes in two groups of patients--a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Patients-Reported Outcomes (PRO) are increasingly used in clinical and epidemiological research. Two main types of analytical strategies can be found for these data: classical test theory (CTT) based on the observed scores and models coming from Item Response Theory (IRT). However, whether IRT or CTT would be the most appropriate method to analyse PRO data remains unknown. The statistical properties of CTT and IRT, regarding power and corresponding effect sizes, were compared. METHODS: Two-group cross-sectional studies were simulated for the comparison of PRO data using IRT or CTT-based analysis. For IRT, different scenarios were investigated according to whether items or person parameters were assumed to be known, to a certain extent for item parameters, from good to poor precision, or unknown and therefore had to be estimated. The powers obtained with IRT or CTT were compared and parameters having the strongest impact on them were identified. RESULTS: When person parameters were assumed to be unknown and items parameters to be either known or not, the power achieved using IRT or CTT were similar and always lower than the expected power using the well-known sample size formula for normally distributed endpoints. The number of items had a substantial impact on power for both methods. CONCLUSION: Without any missing data, IRT and CTT seem to provide comparable power. The classical sample size formula for CTT seems to be adequate under some conditions but is not appropriate for IRT. In IRT, it seems important to take account of the number of items to obtain an accurate formula.