OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported cognitive function can be measured using negatively worded items (concerns) and positively worded (abilities) items. It is possible that reporting abilities is less subject to the influence of emotional states. This study evaluated the relationship between cognitive concerns and cognitive abilities. METHODS: Cancer patients (N = 509; mean age = 61 years; 50% men; 86% White) completed concerns and abilities items developed by the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the extent to which items were loaded on one single factor (unidimensionality). Multidimensionality was evaluated using bi-factor analysis (local factors: concerns and abilities). Slope parameters from multidimensional item response theory (IRT) and unidimensional IRT were compared to evaluate which factor solution fits best. RESULTS: Acceptable fit indices were found in both one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96; root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.062) and bi-factor analysis (CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.043). Thus, abilities and concerns could be considered as a single dimension. Yet, high loadings on the local factor in bi-factor analysis and slope discrepancies between unidimensional IRT and multidimensional IRT indicate that abilities should be considered as a separate factor from concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns and abilities could be measured using one-unidimensional item bank. Results also support measuring each construct separately. We recommend a conservative approach by measuring and reporting concerns and abilities separately. We therefore recommend two separate but co-calibrated item banks in the PROMIS network: cognitive function item bank-concerns and cognitive function item bank-abilities. Both item banks showed good psychometric properties and are available for research and clinical purposes.
OBJECTIVE:Patient-reported cognitive function can be measured using negatively worded items (concerns) and positively worded (abilities) items. It is possible that reporting abilities is less subject to the influence of emotional states. This study evaluated the relationship between cognitive concerns and cognitive abilities. METHODS:Cancerpatients (N = 509; mean age = 61 years; 50% men; 86% White) completed concerns and abilities items developed by the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the extent to which items were loaded on one single factor (unidimensionality). Multidimensionality was evaluated using bi-factor analysis (local factors: concerns and abilities). Slope parameters from multidimensional item response theory (IRT) and unidimensional IRT were compared to evaluate which factor solution fits best. RESULTS: Acceptable fit indices were found in both one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96; root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.062) and bi-factor analysis (CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.043). Thus, abilities and concerns could be considered as a single dimension. Yet, high loadings on the local factor in bi-factor analysis and slope discrepancies between unidimensional IRT and multidimensional IRT indicate that abilities should be considered as a separate factor from concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns and abilities could be measured using one-unidimensional item bank. Results also support measuring each construct separately. We recommend a conservative approach by measuring and reporting concerns and abilities separately. We therefore recommend two separate but co-calibrated item banks in the PROMIS network: cognitive function item bank-concerns and cognitive function item bank-abilities. Both item banks showed good psychometric properties and are available for research and clinical purposes.
Authors: Vincent Koppelmans; Monique M B Breteler; Willem Boogerd; Caroline Seynaeve; Chad Gundy; Sanne B Schagen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A J Saykin; H A Wishart; L A Rabin; R B Santulli; L A Flashman; J D West; T L McHugh; A C Mamourian Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: K Fliessbach; C Helmstaedter; H Urbach; A Althaus; H Pels; M Linnebank; A Juergens; A Glasmacher; I G Schmidt-Wolf; T Klockgether; U Schlegel Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-04-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kerstin Hermelink; Michael Untch; Michael P Lux; Rolf Kreienberg; Thomas Beck; Ingo Bauerfeind; Karin Münzel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Kristin M Phillips; Sari Chait; Leigh Anne Faul; Mihaela A Popa; Yun-Hsiang Lee; Mallory G Hussin; Paul B Jacobsen; Brent J Small Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Haryana M Dhillon; Ian F Tannock; Gregory R Pond; Corrinne Renton; Sean B Rourke; Janette L Vardy Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Jamie S Myers; Melike Kahya; Melissa Mitchell; Junqiang Dai; Jianghua He; Sanghee Moon; Kevin Hamilton; Mary Valla; Anne O'Dea; Jennifer Klemp; Monica Kurylo; Abiodun Akinwuntan; Hannes Devos Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lauren T Ptomey; Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Eric D Vidoni; Richard A Washburn; Anna M Gorczyca; Todd D Little; Jaehoon Lee; Brian C Helsel; Kristine N Williams; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Robert J Gray; Joseph A Sparano; Timothy J Whelan; Sofia F Garcia; Betina Yanez; Amye J Tevaarwerk; Ruth C Carlos; Kathy S Albain; John A Olson; Matthew P Goetz; Kathleen I Pritchard; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; E Claire Dees; Worta J McCaskill-Stevens; Lori M Minasian; George W Sledge; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sheri J Hartman; Sandahl H Nelson; Emily Myers; Loki Natarajan; Dorothy D Sears; Barton W Palmer; Lauren S Weiner; Barbara A Parker; Ruth E Patterson Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nan E Rothrock; Karon F Cook; Mary O'Connor; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Susan E Yount Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Carol M Moinpour; Arnold L Potosky; Tania Lobo; Elizabeth A Hahn; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Theresa H M Keegan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; David T Eton Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nabiel Mir; Paul MacLennan; Mustafa Al-Obaidi; Donna Murdaugh; Kelly M Kenzik; Andrew McDonald; Noha Sharafeldin; Crystal Young-Smith; Ravi Paluri; Olumide Gbolahan; Lakshmin Nandagopal; Smita Bhatia; Grant R Williams Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.599