English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Response-shift effects impact the interpretation of change in quality-of-life (QOL) measures developed with classical test theory (CTT) methods. This study evaluated the impact of response shift on measures developed using Item Response Theory (IRT), as compared to CTT.    Methods  Chronically ill patients and caregivers ( n  = 1481) participated in a web-based survey at baseline and 17 months later. Patients completed the IRT-based PROMIS-10; NeuroQOL Applied Cognition, Positive Affect & Well-Being short-forms; and the CTT-based Ryff Environmental Mastery subscale. Response-shift effects were evaluated using regression residual modeling and the QOL Appraisal Profile-v2. The sample was divided into positive and negative catalyst groups on the basis of marital, work, job-status, and comorbidity change. Regression models predicted residualized QOL change scores as a function of catalysts and appraisal changes.    Results  In this sample 859 (58%) reported a catalyst. No catalyst was associated with change in scales developed using IRT, but positive work change was associated with the CTT-based measure. Catalyst variables were associated with changes in appraisal, which in turn were related to all outcomes, particularly for global mental health after a positive work-change.    Conclusions  Appraisal processes are relevant to interpreting IRT measures, particularly for global mental health in the face of life changes.

Does response shift impact interpretation of change even among scales developed using item response theory?