Linking Scores with Patient-Reported Health Outcome Instruments:A VALIDATION STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THREE LINKING METHODS

Benjamin D. Schalet (), Sangdon Lim (), David Cella () and Seung W. Choi ()
Additional contact information
Benjamin D. Schalet: Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine
Sangdon Lim: The University of Texas at Austin
David Cella: Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine
Seung W. Choi: The University of Texas at Austin

Psychometrika, 2021, vol. 86, issue 3, No 5, 717-746

Abstract: Abstract The psychometric process used to establish a relationship between the scores of two (or more) instruments is generically referred to as linking. When two instruments with the same content and statistical test specifications are linked, these instruments are said to be equated. Linking and equating procedures have long been used for practical benefit in educational testing. In recent years, health outcome researchers have increasingly applied linking techniques to patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. However, these applications have some noteworthy purposes and associated methodological questions. Purposes for linking health outcomes include the harmonization of data across studies or settings (enabling increased power in hypothesis testing), the aggregation of summed score data by means of score crosswalk tables, and score conversion in clinical settings where new instruments are introduced, but an interpretable connection to historical data is needed. When two PRO instruments are linked, assumptions for equating are typically not met and the extent to which those assumptions are violated becomes a decision point around how (and whether) to proceed with linking. We demonstrate multiple linking procedures—equipercentile, unidimensional IRT calibration, and calibrated projection—with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression bank and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We validate this link across two samples and simulate different instrument correlation levels to provide guidance around which linking method is preferred. Finally, we discuss some remaining issues and directions for psychometric research in linking PRO instruments.

Keywords: patient-reported outcomes; linking; scale alignment; depression; PROMIS; PHQ-9; calibrated projection (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-021-09776-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:psycho:v:86:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-021-09776-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... gy/journal/11336/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s11336-021-09776-z

Access Statistics for this article

Psychometrika is currently edited by Irini Moustaki

More articles in Psychometrika from Springer, The Psychometric Society
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().