TY - JOUR T1 - An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Y1 - 2009 A1 - Kocalevent, R. D. A1 - Rose, M. A1 - Becker, J. A1 - Walter, O. B. A1 - Fliege, H. A1 - Bjorner, J. B. A1 - Kleiber, D. A1 - Klapp, B. F. KW - *Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted KW - Adolescent KW - Adult KW - Aged KW - Aged, 80 and over KW - Confidence Intervals KW - Female KW - Humans KW - Male KW - Middle Aged KW - Perception KW - Quality of Health Care/*standards KW - Questionnaires KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Sickness Impact Profile KW - Stress, Psychological/*diagnosis/psychology KW - Treatment Outcome AB - OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a first computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the measurement of stress perception (Stress-CAT), in terms of the two dimensions: exposure to stress and stress reaction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Item response theory modeling was performed using a two-parameter model (Generalized Partial Credit Model). The evaluation of the Stress-CAT comprised a simulation study and real clinical application. A total of 1,092 psychosomatic patients (N1) were studied. Two hundred simulees (N2) were generated for a simulated response data set. Then the Stress-CAT was given to n=116 inpatients, (N3) together with established stress questionnaires as validity criteria. RESULTS: The final banks included n=38 stress exposure items and n=31 stress reaction items. In the first simulation study, CAT scores could be estimated with a high measurement precision (SE<0.32; rho>0.90) using 7.0+/-2.3 (M+/-SD) stress reaction items and 11.6+/-1.7 stress exposure items. The second simulation study reanalyzed real patients data (N1) and showed an average use of items of 5.6+/-2.1 for the dimension stress reaction and 10.0+/-4.9 for the dimension stress exposure. Convergent validity showed significantly high correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The Stress-CAT is short and precise, potentially lowering the response burden of patients in clinical decision making. VL - 62 SN - 1878-5921 (Electronic)0895-4356 (Linking) N1 - Kocalevent, Ruya-DanielaRose, MatthiasBecker, JanineWalter, Otto BFliege, HerbertBjorner, Jakob BKleiber, DieterKlapp, Burghard FEvaluation StudiesUnited StatesJournal of clinical epidemiologyJ Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Mar;62(3):278-87, 287.e1-3. Epub 2008 Jul 18. ER -