Background
Increasing importance of patient evaluation of physician performance
Web- KIDMAP to gather feedback efficiently from patients
Reasons for the use of the IRT 1-parameter Rasch model for KIDMAP
The Patient Feedback Questionnaire
Methods
Participants and Procedure
Instrument and measures
Data Analysis
Model-data fit
Assessment of differential item functioning (DIF)
Difference between DIF and item misfit
KIDMAP development
Results
Participants
Characteristics | Number | % | Characteristics | Number | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender
|
Education
| ||||
female | 239 | 54% | elementary | 303 | 68% |
male | 189 | 42% | secondary | 85 | 19% |
none or missing | 17 | 4% | higher | 46 | 10% |
none or missing | 11 | 3% | |||
Age
|
Disease
| ||||
20–29 | 17 | 4% | internal medicine | 109 | 24% |
30–39 | 28 | 6% | surgical medicine | 97 | 22% |
40–49 | 121 | 27% | O & G* | 41 | 9% |
50–59 | 243 | 55% | pediatric medicine | 25 | 6% |
over 60 | 14 | 3% | others | 129 | 29% |
none or missing | 22 | 5% | none or missing | 44 | 10% |
Model-data fit
Difficulty | SE | Classified groups for DIF | MNSQ | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Logits | Logits |
Gender
|
Education
|
Age
|
Disease
|
Outfit
|
Infit
| |
Interpersonal skills | ||||||||
2 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.63* | 1.05 | 1.05 |
4 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 0.82 | 0.80 |
3 | -0.01 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 1.46* | 0.38 | 1.11 | 1.09 |
1 | -0.11 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.95* | 0.34 | 0.98 | 1.01 |
5 | -0.52 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.70* | 0.34 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
Communication of information | ||||||||
9 | 0.51 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.73* | 0.14 | 0.81 | 0.84 |
8 | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 1.09* | 0.44 | 0.90 | 0.86 |
6 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.60* | 0.15 | 0.95 | 0.90 |
7 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.88 | 0.84 |
Patient engagement and enablement | ||||||||
9 | 0.52 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.76* | 0.50 | 1.24 | 1.24 |
6 | 0.3 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.74* | 0.75* | 0.83 | 0.80 |
7 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.57* | 0.34 | 1.05 | 1.10 |
15 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 1.25* | 0.65* | 1.18 | 1.11 |
16 | -0.13 | 0.10 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.54* | 0.31 | 0.76 | 0.69 |
14 | -0.21 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.19 | 1.07* | 0.77* | 1.30 | 1.22 |
8 | -0.3 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.36 | 0.19 | 1.00 | 0.89 |
Overall satisfaction | ||||||||
19 | -0.06 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.47 | 0.24 | 1.22 | 1.10 |
17 | -0.26 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.80* | 0.33 | 1.04 | 1.10 |
18 | -0.69 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.59* | 0.83 | 0.76 |
Technical competence | ||||||||
21 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.84* | 0.59* | 1.14 | 1.12 |
20 | -0.13 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.85* | 1.02 | 0.95 |
MEAN | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.70 | 0.44 | 1.00 | 0.97 |
S.D. | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.15 |
DIF assessment
KIDMAP demonstration
Discussions
Findings
Strengths of the study
Limitations of the study
Applications
No. | Actual Score | Maximum Score | logits | SE | Infit MNSQ | Outfit MNSQ | Infit t
| Outfit t
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 66 | 105 | -0.48 | 0.36 | 2.35 | 2.37 | 2.94 | 2.99 |
2 | 87 | 105 | 3.48 | 0.45 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.10 | 0.00 |