Jakob B Bjorner1, Matthias Rose, Barbara Gandek, Arthur A Stone, Doerte U Junghaenel, John E Ware. 1. National Research Centre for the Working Environment Lersø Park Alle 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark; QualityMetric, Optum PatientInsight, 24 Albion Road, Lincoln, RI 02865, USA; Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Electronic address: jbjorner@qualitymetric.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity. RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR. CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity. RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR. CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: A John Rush; Ira H Bernstein; Madhukar H Trivedi; Thomas J Carmody; Stephen Wisniewski; James C Mundt; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Melanie M Biggs; Ada Woo; Andrew A Nierenberg; Maurizio Fava Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Stephen Joel Coons; Chad J Gwaltney; Ron D Hays; J Jason Lundy; Jeff A Sloan; Dennis A Revicki; William R Lenderking; David Cella; Ethan Basch Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Daniel Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Holly Rice; Liam Gabb; Madeleine King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brooke E Magnus; Yang Liu; Jason He; Hally Quinn; David Thissen; Heather E Gross; Darren A DeWalt; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Pamela A Kisala; Aaron J Boulton; Matthew L Cohen; Mary D Slavin; Alan M Jette; Susan Charlifue; Robin Hanks; M J Mulcahey; David Cella; David S Tulsky Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Caroleen W Quach; Michelle M Langer; Ronald C Chen; David Thissen; Deborah S Usinger; Marc A Emerson; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Molly Elizabeth Marino; Mark Meterko; Elizabeth E Marfeo; Christine M McDonough; Alan M Jette; Pengsheng Ni; Kara Bogusz; Elizabeth K Rasch; Diane E Brandt; Leighton Chan Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Ashley Wilder Smith; Sandra A Mitchell; Cheryl K De Aguiar; Claudia Moy; William T Riley; Molly V Wagster; Ellen M Werner Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Robert L Askew; Karon F Cook; Francis J Keefe; Cindy J Nowinski; David Cella; Dennis A Revicki; Esi M Morgan DeWitt; Kaleb Michaud; Dace L Trence; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.725