Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1233–1243 | Cite as

Psychometric properties of the PROMIS® pediatric scales: precision, stability, and comparison of different scoring and administration options

  • James W. Varni
  • Brooke Magnus
  • Brian D. Stucky
  • Yang Liu
  • Hally Quinn
  • David Thissen
  • Heather E. Gross
  • I-Chan Huang
  • Darren A. DeWalt
Article

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

PROMIS Pediatrics Self-report Patient-reported outcomes Item response theory Computerized adaptive testing 

Abbreviations

PROMIS

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

HRQOL

Health-related quality of life

NIH

National Institutes of Health

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Grant U01AR052181. Information on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) can be found at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/ and http://www.nihPROMIS.org.

References

  1. 1.
    Ader, D. N. (2007). Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S1–S2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., Yeatts, K., et al. (2010). Sampling plan and patient characteristics of the PROMIS pediatrics large-scale survey. Quality of Life Research, 19, 585–594.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research, 19, 595–607.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference Scale: An item response theory analysis of the pediatric pain item bank. Journal of Pain, 11, 1109–1119.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2012). PROMIS Pediatric Anger Scale: An item response theory analysis. Quality of Life Research, 21, 697–706.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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. 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
  12. 12.
    Thissen, D., Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Irwin, D. E., & DeWalt, D. A. (2011). Using the PedsQL™ 3.0 Asthma Module to obtain scores comparable with those of the PROMIS Pediatric Asthma Impact Scale (PAIS). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1497–1505.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walsh, T. R., Irwin, D. E., Meier, A., Varni, J. W., & DeWalt, D. A. (2008). The use of focus groups in the development of the PROMIS pediatrics item bank. Quality of Life Research, 17, 725–735.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Nathan, R. A., Sorkness, C. A., Kosinski, M., Schatz, M., Li, J. T., Marcus, P., et al. (2004). Development of the asthma control test: A survey for assessing asthma control. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 113, 59–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, A. H., Zeiger, R., Sorkness, C., Mahr, T., Ostrom, N., Burgess, S., et al. (2007). Development and cross-sectional validation of the childhood asthma control test. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 119, 817–825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., Ferrie, P. J., Griffith, L. E., & Townsend, M. (1996). Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Quality of Life Research, 5, 35–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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
  20. 20.
    Kim, S. (2012). A note on the reliability coefficients for item response model-based ability estimates. Psychometrika, 77, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J. (2009). Comparison of CAT item selection criteria for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 419–440.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Pilkonis, P. A., Hays, R. D., & Cella, D. (2010). Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms. Quality of Life Research, 19, 125–136.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., Burwinkle, T. M., Bryant, W. P., & Wilson, D. P. (2008). The ePedsQL™ in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: Feasibility, reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ internet administration. Diabetes Care, 31, 672–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Varni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brooke Magnus
    • 3
  • Brian D. Stucky
    • 4
  • Yang Liu
    • 3
  • Hally Quinn
    • 3
  • David Thissen
    • 3
  • Heather E. Gross
    • 5
  • I-Chan Huang
    • 6
  • Darren A. DeWalt
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, College of MedicineTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, College of ArchitectureTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  5. 5.Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services ResearchUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  6. 6.Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, Institute for Child Health PolicyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations