James Fries1, Matthias Rose, Eswar Krishnan. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA. jff@stanford.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Use of item response theory (IRT) and, subsequently, computerized adaptive testing (CAT), under the umbrella of the NIH-PROMIS initiative (National Institutes of Health-Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System), to bring strong new assets to the development of more sensitive, more widely applicable, and more efficiently administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We present data on current progress in 3 crucial areas: floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness to change, and interactive computer-based administration over the Internet. METHODS: We examined nearly 1000 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and related diseases in a series of studies including a one-year longitudinal examination of detection of change; compared responsiveness of the Legacy SF-36 and HAQ-DI instruments with IRT-based instruments; performed a randomized head-to-head trial of 4 modes of item administration; and simulated the effect of lack of floor and ceiling items upon statistical power and sample sizes. RESULTS: IRT-based PROMIS instruments are more sensitive to change, resulting in the potential to reduce sample size requirements substantially by up to a factor of 4. The modes of administration tested did not differ from each other in any instance by more than one-tenth of a standard deviation. Floor and ceiling effects greatly reduce the number of available subjects, particularly at the ceiling. CONCLUSION: Failure to adequately address floor and ceiling effects, which determine the range of an instrument, can result in suboptimal assessment of many patients. Improved items, improved instruments, and computer-based administration improve PRO assessment and represent a fundamental advance in clinical outcomes research.
OBJECTIVE: Use of item response theory (IRT) and, subsequently, computerized adaptive testing (CAT), under the umbrella of the NIH-PROMIS initiative (National Institutes of Health-Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System), to bring strong new assets to the development of more sensitive, more widely applicable, and more efficiently administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We present data on current progress in 3 crucial areas: floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness to change, and interactive computer-based administration over the Internet. METHODS: We examined nearly 1000 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and related diseases in a series of studies including a one-year longitudinal examination of detection of change; compared responsiveness of the Legacy SF-36 and HAQ-DI instruments with IRT-based instruments; performed a randomized head-to-head trial of 4 modes of item administration; and simulated the effect of lack of floor and ceiling items upon statistical power and sample sizes. RESULTS: IRT-based PROMIS instruments are more sensitive to change, resulting in the potential to reduce sample size requirements substantially by up to a factor of 4. The modes of administration tested did not differ from each other in any instance by more than one-tenth of a standard deviation. Floor and ceiling effects greatly reduce the number of available subjects, particularly at the ceiling. CONCLUSION: Failure to adequately address floor and ceiling effects, which determine the range of an instrument, can result in suboptimal assessment of many patients. Improved items, improved instruments, and computer-based administration improve PRO assessment and represent a fundamental advance in clinical outcomes research.
Authors: Pamela Duncan; Dean Reker; Sooyeon Kwon; Sue-Min Lai; Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Carmen Alfrey; Jesus Marquez Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Bryce B Reeve; Elizabeth Hahn; David Cella; James Fries; Ashley Wilder Smith; Theresa H M Keegan; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa Paddock; Carol M Moinpour Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Casey M Beleckas; Alex Padovano; Jason Guattery; Aaron M Chamberlain; Jay D Keener; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Claire E H Barber; JoAnn Zell; Jinoos Yazdany; Aileen M Davis; Laura Cappelli; Linda Ehrlich-Jones; Donna Everix; J Carter Thorne; Victoria Bohm; Lisa Suter; Alex Limanni; Kaleb Michaud Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.794
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