Karon F Cook1, Benjamin D Schalet2, Michael A Kallen2, Joshua P Rutsohn2, David Cella2. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 Michigan Ave, 27th Floor, Chicago, IL, USA. karon.cook@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 Michigan Ave, 27th Floor, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study purposes were to mathematically link scores of the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference Subscale and the Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (legacy pain interference measures) to the NIH Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) metric and evaluate results. METHODS: Linking was accomplished using both equipercentile and item response theory (IRT) methods. Item parameters for legacy items were estimated on the PROMIS-PI metric to allow for pattern scoring. Crosswalk tables also were developed that associated raw scores (summed or average) on legacy measures to PROMIS-PI scores. For each linking strategy, participants' actual PROMIS-PI scores were compared to those predicted based on their legacy scores. To assess the impact of different sample sizes, we conducted random resampling with replacement across 10,000 replications with sample sizes of n = 25, 50, and 75. RESULTS: Analyses supported the assumption that all three scales were measuring similar constructs. IRT methods produced marginally better results than equipercentile linking. Accuracy of the links was substantially affected by sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The linking tools (crosswalks and item parameter estimates) developed in this study are robust methods for estimating the PROMIS-PI scores of samples based on legacy measures. We recommend using pattern scoring for users who have the necessary software and score crosswalks for those who do not.
PURPOSE: The study purposes were to mathematically link scores of the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference Subscale and the Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (legacy pain interference measures) to the NIH Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) metric and evaluate results. METHODS: Linking was accomplished using both equipercentile and item response theory (IRT) methods. Item parameters for legacy items were estimated on the PROMIS-PI metric to allow for pattern scoring. Crosswalk tables also were developed that associated raw scores (summed or average) on legacy measures to PROMIS-PI scores. For each linking strategy, participants' actual PROMIS-PI scores were compared to those predicted based on their legacy scores. To assess the impact of different sample sizes, we conducted random resampling with replacement across 10,000 replications with sample sizes of n = 25, 50, and 75. RESULTS: Analyses supported the assumption that all three scales were measuring similar constructs. IRT methods produced marginally better results than equipercentile linking. Accuracy of the links was substantially affected by sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The linking tools (crosswalks and item parameter estimates) developed in this study are robust methods for estimating the PROMIS-PI scores of samples based on legacy measures. We recommend using pattern scoring for users who have the necessary software and score crosswalks for those who do not.
Authors: Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Connie Chen; Andrew Brugger; Richard Hubbard; Michael Snabes; Stephen N Palmer; Qiang Zhang; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Pain Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: C S Cleeland; R Gonin; A K Hatfield; J H Edmonson; R H Blum; J A Stewart; K J Pandya Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michelle A Anderson; Venkata Akshintala; Kathryn M Albers; Stephen T Amann; Inna Belfer; Randall Brand; Suresh Chari; Greg Cote; Brian M Davis; Luca Frulloni; Andres Gelrud; Nalini Guda; Abhinav Humar; Rodger A Liddle; Adam Slivka; Rachelle Stopczynski Gupta; Eva Szigethy; Jyothsna Talluri; Wahid Wassef; C Mel Wilcox; John Windsor; Dhiraj Yadav; David C Whitcomb Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Patrick Janulis; Michele D Kipke; Brian Mustanski; Steven Shoptaw; Richard Moore; Marianna Baum; Soyeon Kim; Suzanne Siminski; Amy Ragsdale; Pamina M Gorbach Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-11
Authors: Leonie Klaufus; Xiaodan Tang; Eva Verlinden; Marcel van der Wal; Lotte Haverman; Michiel Luijten; Pim Cuijpers; Mai Chinapaw; Benjamin Schalet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Richard A Deyo; David I Buckley; LeAnn Michaels; Amy Kobus; Elizabeth Eckstrom; Vanessa Forro; Cynthia Morris Journal: Pain Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.750