The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement
Open accessAbstract
The growing emphasis on patient-centered care has accelerated the demand for high-quality data from patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Traditionally, the development and validation of these measures has been guided by classical test theory. However, item response theory (IRT), an alternate measurement framework, offers promise for addressing practical measurement problems found in health-related research that have been difficult to solve through classical methods. This paper introduces foundational concepts in IRT, as well as commonly used models and their assumptions. Existing data on a combined sample (n = 636) of Korean American and Vietnamese American adults who responded to the High Blood Pressure Health Literacy Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 are used to exemplify typical applications of IRT. These examples illustrate how IRT can be used to improve the development, refinement, and evaluation of PRO measures. Greater use of methods based on this framework can increase the accuracy and efficiency with which PROs are measured.
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
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
Spitzer, R. L. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1737 · Cited by 9,802 · cited 1×
“The PHQ-9 is a 9-item depression scale [46].”
Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores
Rozeboom, W. W., Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1969) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162101 · Cited by 8,022
Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests
(1961) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(61)80061-2 · Cited by 6,939
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011 · Cited by 5,128
Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2003) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01103.x · Cited by 4,492
(2000) · Cited by 4,106
A Rasch model for partial credit scoring
Masters, G. N. (1982) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296272 · Cited by 3,782
Fundamentals of item response theory
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-4185 · Cited by 3,414
Cited by
Sischka, P. E., Costa, A. P., Steffgen, G., & Schmidt, A. F. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100020 · Cited by 245
Quality of life as patient-reported outcomes: principles of assessment
Bullinger, M., & Quitmann, J. (2014) · Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.31887/dcns.2014.16.2/mbullinger · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Nguyen, T. H., Han, H.-R., Kim, M. T., & Chan, K. S.
- Venue
- The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
- Published
- 2014-01-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-35
- ISSN
- 1178-1653 (ISSN-L)
- 1178-1661
- OpenAlex
- W2004838668
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 64
- FWCI
- 8.63
- 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: An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s40271-013-0041-0
- The paper
- Nguyen, T. H., Han, H.-R., Kim, M. T., & Chan, K. S. (2014). An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0041-0
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.
