PURPOSE: We provide detailed instructions for analyzing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collected with an existing (legacy) instrument so that scores can be calibrated to the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS) metric. This calibration facilitates migration to computerized adaptive test (CAT) PROMIS data collection, while facilitating research using historical legacy data alongside new PROMIS data. METHODS: A cross-sectional convenience sample (n = 2,178) from the Universities of Washington and Alabama at Birmingham HIV clinics completed the PROMIS short form and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression symptom measures between August 2008 and December 2009. We calibrated the tests using item response theory. We compared measurement precision of the PHQ-9, the PROMIS short form, and simulated PROMIS CAT. RESULTS: Dimensionality analyses confirmed the PHQ-9 could be calibrated to the PROMIS metric. We provide code used to score the PHQ-9 on the PROMIS metric. The mean standard errors of measurement were 0.49 for the PHQ-9, 0.35 for the PROMIS short form, and 0.37, 0.28, and 0.27 for 3-, 8-, and 9-item-simulated CATs. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy described here facilitated migration from a fixed-format legacy scale to PROMIS CAT administration and may be useful in other settings.
PURPOSE: We provide detailed instructions for analyzing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collected with an existing (legacy) instrument so that scores can be calibrated to the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS) metric. This calibration facilitates migration to computerized adaptive test (CAT) PROMIS data collection, while facilitating research using historical legacy data alongside new PROMIS data. METHODS: A cross-sectional convenience sample (n = 2,178) from the Universities of Washington and Alabama at Birmingham HIV clinics completed the PROMIS short form and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression symptom measures between August 2008 and December 2009. We calibrated the tests using item response theory. We compared measurement precision of the PHQ-9, the PROMIS short form, and simulated PROMIS CAT. RESULTS: Dimensionality analyses confirmed the PHQ-9 could be calibrated to the PROMIS metric. We provide code used to score the PHQ-9 on the PROMIS metric. The mean standard errors of measurement were 0.49 for the PHQ-9, 0.35 for the PROMIS short form, and 0.37, 0.28, and 0.27 for 3-, 8-, and 9-item-simulated CATs. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy described here facilitated migration from a fixed-format legacy scale to PROMIS CAT administration and may be useful in other settings.
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: Natalie Ferraiolo; Miguel Pinedo; Jessica McCurley; Jose Luis Burgos; Adriana Carolina Vargas-Ojeda; Michael A Rodriguez; Victoria D Ojeda Journal: Int J Cult Ment Health Date: 2016-03-10
Authors: Rachel R Hardeman; Julia M Przedworski; Sara Burke; Diana J Burgess; Sylvia Perry; Sean Phelan; John F Dovidio; Michelle van Ryn Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: H Felix Fischer; Cassandra Klug; Koosje Roeper; Eva Blozik; Frank Edelmann; Marion Eisele; Stefan Störk; Rolf Wachter; Martin Scherer; Matthias Rose; Christoph Herrmann-Lingen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Celeste L Overbeek; Sjoerd P F T Nota; Prakash Jayakumar; Michiel G Hageman; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Paul A Pilkonis; Lan Yu; Nathan E Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Catherine C Maihoefer; Suzanne M Lawrence Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 4.791