The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century
Abstract
Item response theory (IRT) has a number of potential advantages over classical test theory in assessing self-reported health outcomes. IRT models yield invariant item and latent trait estimates (within a linear transformation), standard errors conditional on trait level, and trait estimates anchored to item content. IRT also facilitates evaluation of differential item functioning, inclusion of items with different response formats in the same scale, and assessment of person fit and is ideally suited for implementing computer adaptive testing. Finally, IRT methods can be helpful in developing better health outcome measures and in assessing change over time. These issues are reviewed, along with a discussion of some of the methodological and practical challenges in applying IRT methods.
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
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors
Cattell, R. B. (1966) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 · Cited by 13,554
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330
Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests
(1961) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(61)80061-2 · Cited by 6,939
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
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
A Rating Formulation for Ordered Response Categories
Andrich, D. (1978) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02293814 · Cited by 2,970
Cited by
Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Ibrahim, H. M., Carmody, T. J., Arnow, B., Klein, D. N., Markowitz, J. C., Ninan, P. T., Kornstein, S., Manber, R., et al. (2003) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01866-8 · Cited by 3,829
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
Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets
van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., & Pickard, A. S. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 · Cited by 2,153
The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life
Hays, R. D., & Morales, L. S. (2001) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853890109002089 · Cited by 1,460
Self-citation(2011) · Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository · Cited by 1,209
Metadata
- Authors
- Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 9 Suppl
- Pages
- II-28-II-42
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969055757
- Cited by
- 869
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 31.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-200009002-00007
- The paper
- Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200009002-00007
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.
