Key result
PCTree and MixPCM models were not consistent in detecting covariates associated with differential interpretations of HADS depression subscale items, identifying different subgroups and latent classes.
Why the study?
Unsupervised item-response theory models can assess differential item functioning in patient-reported outcome measures when covariates are unknown a priori, but the consistency of results between IRTrees and MixIRT models is unknown.
Observational (n=4,478)
Different unsupervised item response theory models (PCTree and MixPCM) yield inconsistent results when identifying patient characteristics associated with differential item functioning in patient-reported outcome measures.
Discrepant model results warrant caution interpreting HADS covariates clinically; leaves open optimal psychometric methods for research.
PURPOSE: Unsupervised item-response theory (IRT) models such as polytomous IRT based on recursive partitioning (IRTrees) and mixture IRT (MixIRT) models can be used to assess differential item functioning (DIF) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) when the covariates associated with DIF are unknown a priori. This study examines the consistency of results for IRTrees and MixIRT models. METHODS: Data were from 4478 individuals in the Alberta Provincial Project on Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry who received cardiac angiography in Alberta, Canada, and completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) depression subscale items. The partial credit model (PCM) based on recursive partitioning (PCTree) and mixture PCM (MixPCM) were used to identify covariates associated with differential response patterns to HADS depression subscale items. Model covariates included demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) age was 64.5(15.7) years, and 3522(78.5%) patients were male. The PCTree identified 4 terminal nodes (subgroups) defined by smoking status, age, and body mass index. A 3-class PCM fits the data well. The MixPCM latent classes were defined by age, disease indication, smoking status, comorbid diabetes, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: PCTree and MixPCM were not consistent in detecting covariates associated with differential interpretations of PROM items. Future research will use computer simulations to assess these models' Type I error and statistical power for identifying covariates associated with DIF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sajobi et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=4,478). PCTree and MixPCM models was evaluated on Consistency in detecting covariates associated with differential item functioning (DIF). PCTree and MixPCM models were not consistent in detecting covariates associated with differential interpretations of HADS depression subscale items, identifying different subgroups and latent classes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: