Psychometric properties of the PROMIS® pediatric scales: precision, stability, and comparison of different scoring and administration options
- 837 Downloads
The objectives of the present study are to investigate the precision of static (fixed-length) short forms versus computerized adaptive testing (CAT) administration, response pattern scoring versus summed score conversion, and test–retest reliability (stability) of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) pediatric self-report scales measuring the latent constructs of depressive symptoms, anxiety, anger, pain interference, peer relationships, fatigue, mobility, upper extremity functioning, and asthma impact with polytomous items.
Participants (N = 331) between the ages of 8 and 17 were recruited from outpatient general pediatrics and subspecialty clinics. Of the 331 participants, 137 were diagnosed with asthma. Three scores based on item response theory (IRT) were computed for each respondent: CAT response pattern expected a posteriori estimates, short-form response pattern expected a posteriori estimates, and short-form summed score expected a posteriori estimates. Scores were also compared between participants with and without asthma. To examine test–retest reliability, 54 children were selected for retesting approximately 2 weeks after the first assessment.
A short CAT (maximum 12 items with a standard error of 0.4) was found, on average, to be less precise than the static short forms. The CAT appears to have limited usefulness over and above what can be accomplished with the existing static short forms (8–10 items). Stability of the scale scores over a 2-week period was generally supported.
The study provides further information on the psychometric properties of the PROMIS pediatric scales and extends the previous IRT analyses to include precision estimates of dynamic versus static administration, test–retest reliability, and validity of administration across groups. Both the positive and negative aspects of using CAT versus short forms are highlighted.
KeywordsPROMIS Pediatrics Self-report Patient-reported outcomes Item response theory Computerized adaptive testing
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
Health-related quality of life
National Institutes of Health
- 2.Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Report Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first 2 years. Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.DeWitt, E. M., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Langer, M., Varni, J. W., et al. (2011). Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: Built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 794–804.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.DeWalt, D. A., Thissen, D., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., DeWitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Lai, J. S., Yeatts, K. B., Gross, H. E., Taylor, O., & Varni, J. W. PROMIS pediatric peer relationships scale: Development of a peer relationships item bank as part of social health measurement. Health Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
- 10.Lai, J.-S., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Varni, J. W., DeWitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Yeatts, K. B., & Dewalt, D. A. Development and psychometric properties of the PROMIS® pediatric fatigue item banks. Quality of Life Research. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0357-1.
- 11.Yeatts, K., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Varni, J. W., DeWitt, E. M., et al. (2010). Construction of the Pediatric Asthma Impact Scale (PAIS) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Asthma, 47, 295–302.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Irwin, D. E., Varni, J. W., Yeatts, K., & DeWalt, D. A. (2009). Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
- 18.Cella, D., Gershon, R., Bass, M., & Rothrock, N. (2012). Assessment center user manual, version 8.7. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University, Department of Medical Social Sciences.Google Scholar
- 19.Thissen, D., Nelson, L., Rosa, K., & McLeod, L. D. (2001). Item response theory for items scored in more than two categories. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 141–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 23.Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Choi, S. W., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(1 Suppl), S20–S27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar