The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption
Open accessAbstract
PurposeConfirmatory factor analysis fit criteria typically are used to evaluate the unidimensionality of item banks. This study explored the degree to which the values of these statistics are affected by two characteristics of item banks developed to measure health outcomes: large numbers of items and nonnormal data.MethodsAnalyses were conducted on simulated and observed data. Observed data were responses to the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Impact Item Bank. Simulated data fit the graded response model and conformed to a normal distribution or mirrored the distribution of the observed data. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), parallel analysis, and bifactor analysis were conducted.ResultsCFA fit values were found to be sensitive to data distribution and number of items. In some instances impact of distribution and item number was quite large.ConclusionsWe concluded that using traditional cutoffs and standards for CFA fit statistics is not recommended for establishing unidimensionality of item banks. An investigative approach is favored over reliance on published criteria. We found bifactor analysis to be appealing in this regard because it allows evaluation of the relative impact of secondary dimensions. In addition to these methodological conclusions, we judged the items of the PROMIS Pain Impact bank to be sufficiently unidimensional for item response theory (IRT) modeling.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330 · cited 18×
“The NNFI differs from the CFI in that it penalizes lack of parsimony in the hypothesized model.”
InfluentialO’connor, B. P. (2000) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200807 · Cited by 4,116
Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286 · Cited by 3,970
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., Ader, D., Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Rose, M. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55 · Cited by 3,118
Self-citationEstimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores
Samejima, F. (1969) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf03372160 · Cited by 2,194
Factor analysis and scale revision.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.287 · Cited by 855
The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7 · Cited by 747
Evaluation of Item Candidates: The PROMIS Qualitative Item Review
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2 · Cited by 719 · cited 1×
“this initiative have been reported elsewhere [11, 31, 41, 42].”
Cited by
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 · Cited by 5,925
The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models
Reise, S. P. (2012) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 · Cited by 2,112
Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference
Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., Cella, D., Rothrock, N., Keefe, F., Callahan, L., et al. (2010) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.025 · Cited by 1,199
Self-citationReise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164412449831 · Cited by 766
Greco, L. A., Baer, R. A., & Smith, G. T. (2011) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0022819 · Cited by 685
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D.
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2009-03-18
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 447-460
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- OpenAlex
- W2000013306
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 14.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4
- The paper
- Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
