PURPOSE: Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content. METHODS: A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions. RESULTS: These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content. CONCLUSIONS: This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.
PURPOSE: Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content. METHODS: A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions. RESULTS: These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content. CONCLUSIONS: This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.
Authors: Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Margaret L Rothman; Philippe Beltran; Joseph C Cappelleri; Joseph Lipscomb; Bonnie Teschendorf Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Christopher Christodoulou; Doerte U Junghaenel; Darren A DeWalt; Nan Rothrock; Arthur A Stone Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-10-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Liana D Castel; Kelly A Williams; Hayden B Bosworth; Susan V Eisen; Elizabeth A Hahn; Debra E Irwin; Morgen A R Kelly; Jennifer Morse; Angela Stover; Darren A DeWalt; Robert F DeVellis Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Doerte U Junghaenel; Jules Cohen; Stefan Schneider; Anu R Neerukonda; Joan E Broderick Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gadi Gilam; John A Sturgeon; Dokyoung S You; Ajay D Wasan; Beth D Darnall; Sean C Mackey Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Mary A Mahieu; Grace E Ahn; Joan S Chmiel; Dorothy D Dunlop; Irene B Helenowski; Pamela Semanik; Jing Song; Susan Yount; Rowland W Chang; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: C B Terwee; L D Roorda; H C W de Vet; J Dekker; R Westhovens; J van Leeuwen; D Cella; H Correia; B Arnold; B Perez; M Boers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christina L Rush; Margaret Darling; Maria Gloria Elliott; Ivis Febus-Sampayo; Charlene Kuo; Juliana Muñoz; Ysabel Duron; Migdalia Torres; Claudia Campos Galván; Florencia Gonzalez; Larisa Caicedo; Anna Nápoles; Roxanne E Jensen; Emily Anderson; Kristi D Graves Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Allen D Nicholson; Hafiz F Kassam; Steven D Pan; Jacob E Berman; Theodore A Blaine; David Kovacevic Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Stephen Schilling; Jenna Freedman; Claire Z Kalpakjian; Anna L Kratz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Carolyn A McCarty; Douglas Zatzick; Elizabeth Stein; Jin Wang; Robert Hilt; Frederick P Rivara Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 7.124