↓ Skip to main content

Item usage in a multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) measuring health-related quality of life

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Item usage in a multidimensional computerized adaptive test (MCAT) measuring health-related quality of life
Published in
Quality of Life Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11136-017-1624-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muirne C. S. Paap, Karel A. Kroeze, Caroline B. Terwee, Job van der Palen, Bernard P. Veldkamp

Abstract

Examining item usage is an important step in evaluating the performance of a computerized adaptive test (CAT). We study item usage for a newly developed multidimensional CAT which draws items from three PROMIS domains, as well as a disease-specific one. The multidimensional item bank used in the current study contained 194 items from four domains: the PROMIS domains fatigue, physical function, and ability to participate in social roles and activities, and a disease-specific domain (the COPD-SIB). The item bank was calibrated using the multidimensional graded response model and data of 795 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To evaluate the item usage rates of all individual items in our item bank, CAT simulations were performed on responses generated based on a multivariate uniform distribution. The outcome variables included active bank size and item overuse (usage rate larger than the expected item usage rate). For average θ-values, the overall active bank size was 9-10%; this number quickly increased as θ-values became more extreme. For values of -2 and +2, the overall active bank size equaled 39-40%. There was 78% overlap between overused items and active bank size for average θ-values. For more extreme θ-values, the overused items made up a much smaller part of the active bank size: here the overlap was only 35%. Our results strengthen the claim that relatively short item banks may suffice when using polytomous items (and no content constraints/exposure control mechanisms), especially when using MCAT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Computer Science 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Psychology 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#13,866,704
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,445
of 2,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,660
of 316,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#30
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,911 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.