1 / 10

IRT-based Memory and Executive Function Scores

IRT-based Memory and Executive Function Scores. Deborah Attix, Laura Gibbons, Lauren Warren, Dan Mungas. Memory. Tried various factor structures; poor fit. Best information: Logical Memory Stories and Word List Learning Lower information: East Boston Test

larya
Télécharger la présentation

IRT-based Memory and Executive Function Scores

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IRT-based Memory and Executive Function Scores Deborah Attix, Laura Gibbons, Lauren Warren, Dan Mungas

  2. Memory • Tried various factor structures; poor fit. • Best information: Logical Memory Stories and Word List Learning • Lower information: East Boston Test • Best results using concepts of Primacy, Mid, and Recency • Good fit, but some residual correlations

  3. Bifactor Model Memory LMDel BosPrim BosPrim BosMid BosRec W123Prim W123Mid W123Rec WRecall Stories Word

  4. Executive Function EF Factor Digit Sequence Word Order Digit Symbol Digit Decis Animals Fruits Digits Back CFI= .994 TLI= .989 RMSA= .046 ChiSq= 37.3 Residual correlations not important.

  5. Do these scores work any better than the ROS composites? • In theory they should do a better job of measuring change over time • Examined random effects models of cognition over time and autopsy findings. • Set up by measuring time backwards from death, with autopsy “predicting” change in cognitive scores over time.

  6. Results The IRT scores were no better than the ROS composites in the random effects models.

  7. Why? Some ideas - • The ROS composites have strong construct validity--they were built well and they measure the construct of memory well. • If you have a good measure of the construct, without too much noise to reduce, then building a new (theoretically better) measure with some of its subparts might not show up as "better“, because the already minimal noise is not impacted much. • Maybe the ROS weighting is pretty accurate, even though it was not from IRT!

  8. Notes • Analyses were restricted to those who had a cognitive test within 3 years of death. • I didn’t try this with an MPlus-scored memory composite. Just used Parscale. Mplus could account for the residual correlations. But I don’t think it would make a big difference (see next slide).

  9. IRT scores also not better for: • The cross-sectional analysis between last visit and death (within 3 years) (even the MPlus scores). • Time-dependent survival analysis in the full cohort to predict dementia.

  10. Take home message • Go ahead and use the ROS composite scores, especially if you want to keep your methods section simpler. • This will NOT become a paper. • Laura can still give you our new scores if you want.

More Related