Power and sample size determination for the group comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the Rasch model: impact of a misspecification of the parameters

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Myriam Blanchin (1)
  Alice Guilleux (1)
  Bastien Perrot (1)
  Ang茅lique Bonnaud-Antignac (1)
  Jean-Benoit Hardouin (1)
  V茅ronique S茅bille (1)
  
  1. EA 4275 ; Biostatistics ; Pharmacoepidemiology and Subjective Measures in Health Sciences ; University of Nantes ; 1 rue ; Gaston Veil ; 44000 ; Nantes ; France
  
• 关键词：Rasch model ; Sample size ; Power ; Group comparison ; Misspecification ; Variance ; Item parameters
• 刊名：BMC Medical Research Methodology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：15
• 期：1
• 全文大小：1,040 KB
• 参考文献：1. Swartz, RJ, Schwartz, C, Basch, E, Cai, L, Fairclough, DL, McLeod, L (2011) SAMSI Psychometric Program Longitudinal Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes Working Group. The king鈥檚 foot of patient-reported outcomes: current practices and new developments for the measurement of change. Qual Life Res. 20: pp. 1159-67 CrossRef
  2. Greenhalgh, J (2009) The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?. Qual Life Res. 18: pp. 115-23 CrossRef
  3. Willke, RJ, Burke, LB, Erickson, P (2004) Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clin Trials 25: pp. 535-52 CrossRef
  4. Thomas, ML (2011) The value of item response theory in clinical assessment: a review. Assessment 18: pp. 291-307 CrossRef
  5. de Bock, E, Hardouin, J-B, Blanchin, M, Le Neel, T, Kubis, G, S茅bille, V (2015) Assessment of score- and rasch-based methods for group comparison of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with intermittent missing data (informative and non-informative). Qual Life Res. 24: pp. 19-29 CrossRef
  6. Nguyen, TH, Han, H-R, Kim, MT, Chan, KS (2014) An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement. Patient 7: pp. 23-35 CrossRef
  7. Reeve, BB, Hays, RD, Chang, C, Perfetto, EM (2007) Applying item response theory to enhance health outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res. 16: pp. 1-3 CrossRef
  8. Calvert, M, Blazeby, J, Altman, DG, Revicki, DA, Moher, D, Brundage, MD (2013) Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. J Am Med Assoc. 309: pp. 814-22 CrossRef
  9. Brundage, M, Blazeby, J, Revicki, D, Bass, B, de Vet, H, Duffy, H (2013) Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Qual Life Res. 22: pp. 1161-75 CrossRef
  10. Revicki, DA, Erickson, PA, Sloan, JA, Dueck, A, Guess, H, Santanello, NC (2007) Interpreting and reporting results based on patient-reported outcomes. Value Health 10 Supplement 2: pp. 116-24 CrossRef
  11. S茅bille, V, Hardouin, J-B, Le N茅el, T, Kubis, G, Boyer, F, Guillemin, F (2010) 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鈥揳 simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodology 10: pp. 24 CrossRef
  12. Holman, R, Glas, CAW, de Haan, RJ (2003) Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory. Controlled Clin Trials 24: pp. 390-410 CrossRef
  13. Glas, CAW, Geerlings, H, van de Laar, MAFJ, Taal, E (2009) Analysis of longitudinal randomized clinical trials using item response models. Contemporary Clin Trials 30: pp. 158-70 CrossRef
  14. Rasch, G (1980) Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
  15. Fischer, GH, Molenaar, IW (1995) Rasch Models: Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications. Springer, New York CrossRef
  16. Hardouin, J-B, Amri, S, Feddag, M-L, S茅bille, V (2012) Towards power and sample size calculations for the comparison of two groups of patients with item response theory models. Stat Med. 31: pp. 1277-90 CrossRef
  17. Blanchin, M, Hardouin, J-B, Guillemin, F, Falissard, B, S茅bille, V (2013) Power and sample size determination for the group comparison of patient-reported outcomes with rasch family models. PLoS ONE 8: pp. 57279 CrossRef
  18. Feddag, M-L, Blanchin, M, Hardouin, J-B, S茅bille, V (2014) Power analysis on the time effect for the longitudinal rasch model. J Appl Meas. 15: pp. 292-301
  19. Feddag M-L, S茅bille V, Blanchin M, Hardouin J-B, Estimation of parameters of the rasch model and comparison of groups in presence of locally dependent items. J Appl Meas. in press. 2014.
  20. Guilleux, A, Blanchin, M, Hardouin, J-B, S茅bille, V (2014) Power and sample size determination in the rasch model: evaluation of the robustness of a numerical method to non-normality of the latent trait. PLoS ONE 9: pp. 83652 CrossRef
  21. Bock, RD, Aitkin, M (1981) Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 46: pp. 443-59 CrossRef
  22. Tedeschi, RG, Calhoun, LG (1996) The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Traumatic Stress 9: pp. 455-71 CrossRef
  
• 刊物主题：Theory of Medicine/Bioethics; Statistical Theory and Methods; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Sciences;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1471-2288

文摘

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are important as endpoints in clinical trials and epidemiological studies. Guidelines for the development of PRO instruments and analysis of PRO data have emphasized the need to report methods used for sample size planning. The Raschpower procedure has been proposed for sample size and power determination for the comparison of PROs in cross-sectional studies comparing two groups of patients when an item reponse model, the Rasch model, is intended to be used for analysis. The power determination of the test of the group effect using Raschpower requires several parameters to be fixed at the planning stage including the item parameters and the variance of the latent variable. Wrong choices regarding these parameters can impact the expected power and the planned sample size to a greater or lesser extent depending on the magnitude of the erroneous assumptions. Methods The impact of a misspecification of the variance of the latent variable or of the item parameters on the determination of the power using the Raschpower procedure was investigated through the comparison of the estimations of the power in different situations. Results The power of the test of the group effect estimated with Raschpower remains stable or shows a very little decrease whatever the values of the item parameters. For most of the cases, the estimated power decreases when the variance of the latent trait increases. As a consequence, an underestimation of this variance will lead to an overestimation of the power of the group effect. Conclusion A misspecification of the item difficulties regarding their overall pattern or their dispersion seems to have no or very little impact on the power of the test of the group effect. In contrast, a misspecification of the variance of the latent variable can have a strong impact as an underestimation of the variance will lead in some cases to an overestimation of the power at the design stage and may result in an underpowered study.