@article {29,
	title = {Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment},
	journal = {Quality of Life Research},
	volume = {16},
	number = {Suppl 1},
	year = {2007},
	note = {Bjorner, Jakob BueChang, Chih-HungThissen, DavidReeve, Bryce B1R43NS047763-01/NS/United States NINDSAG015815/AG/United States NIAResearch Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralNetherlandsQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitationQual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:95-108. Epub 2007 Feb 15.},
	pages = {95-108},
	edition = {2007/05/29},
	abstract = {Item banks and Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) have the potential to greatly improve the assessment of health outcomes. This review describes the unique features of item banks and CAT and discusses how to develop item banks. In CAT, a computer selects the items from an item bank that are most relevant for and informative about the particular respondent; thus optimizing test relevance and precision. Item response theory (IRT) provides the foundation for selecting the items that are most informative for the particular respondent and for scoring responses on a common metric. The development of an item bank is a multi-stage process that requires a clear definition of the construct to be measured, good items, a careful psychometric analysis of the items, and a clear specification of the final CAT. The psychometric analysis needs to evaluate the assumptions of the IRT model such as unidimensionality and local independence; that the items function the same way in different subgroups of the population; and that there is an adequate fit between the data and the chosen item response models. Also, interpretation guidelines need to be established to help the clinical application of the assessment. Although medical research can draw upon expertise from educational testing in the development of item banks and CAT, the medical field also encounters unique opportunities and challenges.},
	keywords = {*Health Status, *Health Status Indicators, *Mental Health, *Outcome Assessment (Health Care), *Quality of Life, *Questionnaires, *Software, Algorithms, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Models, Statistical, Psychometrics},
	isbn = {0962-9343 (Print)},
	author = {Bjorner, J. B. and Chang, C-H. and Thissen, D. and Reeve, B. B.}
}
@article {121,
	title = {Data pooling and analysis to build a preliminary item bank: an example using bowel function in prostate cancer},
	journal = {Evaluation and the Health Professions},
	volume = {28},
	number = {2},
	year = {2005},
	note = {0163-2787 (Print)Journal Article},
	pages = {142-59},
	abstract = {Assessing bowel function (BF) in prostate cancer can help determine therapeutic trade-offs. We determined the components of BF commonly assessed in prostate cancer studies as an initial step in creating an item bank for clinical and research application. We analyzed six archived data sets representing 4,246 men with prostate cancer. Thirty-one items from validated instruments were available for analysis. Items were classified into domains (diarrhea, rectal urgency, pain, bleeding, bother/distress, and other) then subjected to conventional psychometric and item response theory (IRT) analyses. Items fit the IRT model if the ratio between observed and expected item variance was between 0.60 and 1.40. Four of 31 items had inadequate fit in at least one analysis. Poorly fitting items included bleeding (2), rectal urgency (1), and bother/distress (1). A fifth item assessing hemorrhoids was poorly correlated with other items. Our analyses supported four related components of BF: diarrhea, rectal urgency, pain, and bother/distress.},
	keywords = {*Quality of Life, *Questionnaires, Adult, Aged, Data Collection/methods, Humans, Intestine, Large/*physiopathology, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatic Neoplasms/*physiopathology, Psychometrics, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}t, Statistics, Nonparametric},
	author = {Eton, D. T. and Lai, J. S. and Cella, D. and Reeve, B. B. and Talcott, J. A. and Clark, J. A. and McPherson, C. P. and Litwin, M. S. and Moinpour, C. M.}
}
