A Comparison of Anchor-Item Designs for the Concurrent Calibration of Large Banks of Likert-Type Items

Current interest in measuring quality of life is generating interest in the construction of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) with Likert-type items. Calibration of an item bank for use in CAT requires collecting responses to a large number of candidate items. However, the number is usually too large to administer to each subject in the calibration sample. The concurrent anchor-item design solves this problem by splitting the items into separate subtests, with some common items across subtests; then administering each subtest to a different sample; and finally running estimation algorithms once on the aggregated data array, from which a substantial number of responses are then missing. Although the use of anchor-item designs is widespread, the consequences of several configuration decisions on the accuracy of parameter estimates have never been studied in the polytomous case. The present study addresses this question by simulation, comparing the outcomes of several alternatives on the configuration of the anchor-item design. The factors defining variants of the anchor-item design are (a) subtest size, (b) balance of common and unique items per subtest, (c) characteristics of the common items, and (d) criteria for the distribution of unique items across subtests. The results of this study indicate that maximizing accuracy in item parameter recovery requires subtests of the largest possible number of items and the smallest possible number of common items; the characteristics of the common items and the criterion for distribution of unique items do not affect accuracy.

Contrast sensitivity evaluation with filter contact lenses in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a pilot study

Purpose: the aim of this pilot study was to test whether retinitis pigmentosa patients would benefit from filter contact lenses as an effective optical aid against glare and photophobia. Methods: fifteen subjects with retinitis pigmentosa were enrolled in this study. All of them were evaluated with filter soft contact lenses (MaxSight), filter glasses (CPF 527) and without filters (control). All patients were assessed for the three aid conditions by means of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity (without glare and with central and peripheral glare)(CSV-1000) and a specific subjective questionnaire about quality of vision. Results: BCVA was slightly better with filters than without filter but the differences were not statistically significant. Contrast sensitivity without glare improved significantly with the contact lenses (p<0.05). The central glare had significant differences for the frequencies of 3 cpd and 18 cpd between the contact lens filter and the control group (p=0.021 and p=0.044, respectively). For the peripheral glare contrast sensitivity improved with contact lens versus control group for highest frequencies, 12 and 18 cpd (p<0.001 and p=0.045, respectively). According to the questionnaire the contact lens filter gave them more visual comfort than the glasses filter under the scenarios of indoors glare, outdoors activities and indoors comfort. Conclusion: the filter contact lenses seem to be a good option to improve the quality of vision of patients with retinitis pigmentosa.