Search

Objective: Pediatric uveitis can lead to sight‐threatening complications and can impact quality of life (QoL) and functioning. We aimed to examine health‐related QoL, mental health, physical disability, vision‐related functioning (VRF), and vision‐related QoL in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), JIA‐associated uveitis (JIA‐U), and other noninfectious uveitis. We hypothesized that there will be differences based on the presence of eye disease. Methods: A multicenter cross‐sectional study was conducted at four sites. Patients with JIA, JIA‐U, or noninfectious uveitis were enrolled. Patients and parents completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL; health‐related QoL), the Revised Childhood Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; anxiety/depression), the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (C‐HAQ; physical disability), and the Effects of Youngsters' Eyesight on Quality of Life (EYE‐Q) (VRF/vision‐related QoL). Clinical characteristics and patient‐reported outcome measures were compared by diagnosis. Results: Of 549 patients, 332 had JIA, 124 had JIA‐U, and 93 had other uveitis diagnoses. Children with JIA‐U had worse EYE‐Q scores compared to those with JIA only. In children with uveitis, those with anterior uveitis (JIA‐U and uveitis only) had less ocular complications, better EYE‐Q scores, and worse C‐HAQ and PedsQL physical summary scores compared to those with nonanterior disease. In children with anterior uveitis, those with JIA‐U had worse PedsQL physical summary and C‐HAQ scores than anterior uveitis only. Further, EYE‐Q scores were worse in children with bilateral uveitis and more visual impairment. There were no differences in RCADS scores among groups. Conclusion: We provide a comprehensive outcome assessment of children with JIA, JIA‐U, and other uveitis diagnoses. Differences in QoL and function were noted based on underlying disease. Our results support the addition of a vision‐specific measure to better understand the impact of uveitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Effects of Youngsters' Eyesight on Quality of Life (EYE‐Q) questionnaire measures vision‐related functioning (VRF) and vision‐related quality of life (VRQoL) in children with uveitis. Our aim was to revise the alpha version of the EYE‐Q to refine VRF and VRQoL subscales and to assess the validity of the EYE‐Q. Methods: Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), JIA‐associated uveitis, and other noninfectious uveitis were enrolled. Patients and parents completed the EYE‐Q, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (overall quality of life), and Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (physical functioning). The development site completed the alpha version of the EYE‐Q, and the composite sites completed the beta version. We compared item‐subscale correlations, internal consistency, and construct and discriminant validity among the different versions. Results: Of the 644 patients enrolled, 61.6% completed the alpha version, and 38.4% the beta version of the EYE‐Q. Mean ± SD patient age was 11.1 ± 4.2 years, and 70% were female. Fewer White patients (73.5%) completed the alpha version compared to the beta version (86.2%; P < 0.001). With the exception of patient‐reported VRF, both versions had similar item‐subscale correlations. Version comparisons on scale internal consistencies indicated significant differences for parent‐ and patient‐reported VRF, but each scale had a Cronbach's α of >0.80 beta. When data were combined, the EYE‐Q showed significant differences between JIA‐only and uveitis patients on all parent and patient scores, except for patient‐reported VRF. Conclusion: The EYE‐Q appears to be a valid measure of VRF and VRQoL in pediatric uveitis. Our results suggest it may be used as an outcome measure in multicenter pediatric uveitis studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many large‐scale performance assessments include score resolution procedures for resolving discrepancies in rater judgments. The goal of score resolution is conceptually similar to person fit analyses: To identify students for whom observed scores may not accurately reflect their achievement. Previously, researchers have observed that rater‐agreement methods and person fit analyses result in similar conclusions about which students' achievement estimates warrant additional investigation, and that score resolution generally improves person fit. We consider the implications of using person fit analysis as an initial step to identify performances for score resolution, and of using fit indices to identify raters to provide additional ratings. We simulated student responses to multiple‐choice items and a writing task. We simulated various types of person misfit in the writing task and identified the persons who needed resolution using a person‐fit index. Results indicate larger improvements in person fit after resolution when the person fit approach was used compared to a rater‐agreement approach. With the fit‐informed approach, person fit improved for of the misfitting students; with the rater‐agreement approach, person fit improved for around one third of these students. We consider the implications of our findings for mixed‐format assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scoring procedures for many rater-mediated performance assessments include score resolution procedures in which a third rater adjudicates discrepancies between two raters' ratings of the same performance. There are numerous approaches for calculating resolved scores that involve different combinations of the original and third ratings. Using data from two content-area writing assessments, we examined the impact of applying no resolution and applying three resolution techniques: TQ, Parity, and the Operational resolution method used in the assessment program on the values and psychometric quality of student achievement estimates. We observed substantial differences in person fit, a model-based measure of the psychometric quality of student achievement estimates, across methods. Our results highlight the importance of examining person fit as part of evaluating the psychometric quality of rater-mediated performance assessments in which score resolution procedures are employed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers apply individual person fit analyses as a procedure for checking model-data fit for individual test-takers. When a test-taker misfits, it means that the inferences from their test score regarding what they know and can do may not be accurate. One problem in applying individual person fit procedures in practice is the question of how much misfit it takes to make the test score an untrustworthy estimate of achievement. In this paper, we argue that if a person's responses generally follow a monotonic pattern, the resulting test score is "good enough" to be interpreted and used. We present an approach that applies statistical procedures from the Rasch and Mokken measurement perspectives to examine individual person fit based on this good enough criterion in real data from a performance assessment. We discuss how these perspectives may facilitate thinking about applying individual person fit procedures in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individual person fit analyses provide important information regarding the validity of test score inferences for anindividualtest taker. In this study, we use data from an undergraduate statistics test (N = 1135) to illustrate a two-step method that researchers and practitioners can use to examine individual person fit. First, person fit is examined numerically with several indices based on the Rasch model (i.e., Infit, Outfit, and Between-Subset statistics). Second, personmisfit is presented graphically with person response functions, and these person response functions are interpreted using a heuristic. Individual person fit analysis holds promise for improving score interpretation in that it may detect potential threats to validity of score inferences for some test takers. Individual person fit analysis may also highlight particular subsets of items (on which a test taker performs unexpectedly) that can be used to further contextualize her or his test performance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The idea that test scores may not be valid representations of what students know, can do, and should learn next is well known. Person fit provides an important aspect of validity evidence. Person fit analyses at the individual student level are not typically conducted and person fit information is not communicated to educational stakeholders. In this study, we focus on a promising method for detecting and conveying person fit for large-scale educational assessments. This method uses multilevel logistic regression (MLR) to model the slopes of the person response functions, a potential source of person misfit for IRT models. We apply the method to a representative sample of students who took the writing section of the SAT (N = 19,341). The findings suggest that the MLR approach is useful for providing supplemental evidence of model–data fit in large-scale educational test settings. MLR can be useful for detecting general misfit at global and individual levels. However, as with other model–data fit indices, the MLR approach is limited in providing information regarding only some types of person misfit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the effectiveness of using games as a research tool in describing the psychometric properties and assessing the academic performance of students. Topics include the need to consider the principles of evidence-based design to support the construct validity of game-based assessments, the lack of measuring the creativity and persistence of students in the traditional academic assessments, and the use of simulation methods in educational settings.