Paul A Pilkonis1, Lan Yu2, Nathan E Dodds3, Kelly L Johnston3, Suzanne M Lawrence3, Thomas F Hilton4, Dennis C Daley3, Ashwin A Patkar5, Dennis McCarty6. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. Electronic address: pilkonispa@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. 4. NIDA, Indian Harbour Beach, FL 32937, United States. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27705, United States; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27705, United States. 6. Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two item banks for substance use were developed as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)): severity of substance use and positive appeal of substance use. METHODS: Qualitative item analysis (including focus groups, cognitive interviewing, expert review, and item revision) reduced an initial pool of more than 5300 items for substance use to 119 items included in field testing. Items were written in a first-person, past-tense format, with 5 response options reflecting frequency or severity. Both 30-day and 3-month time frames were tested. The calibration sample of 1336 respondents included 875 individuals from the general population (ascertained through an internet panel) and 461 patients from addiction treatment centers participating in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. RESULTS: Final banks of 37 and 18 items were calibrated for severity of substance use and positive appeal of substance use, respectively, using the two-parameter graded response model from item response theory (IRT). Initial calibrations were similar for the 30-day and 3-month time frames, and final calibrations used data combined across the time frames, making the items applicable with either interval. Seven-item static short forms were also developed from each item bank. CONCLUSIONS: Test information curves showed that the PROMIS item banks provided substantial information in a broad range of severity, making them suitable for treatment, observational, and epidemiological research in both clinical and community settings.
BACKGROUND: Two item banks for substance use were developed as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)): severity of substance use and positive appeal of substance use. METHODS: Qualitative item analysis (including focus groups, cognitive interviewing, expert review, and item revision) reduced an initial pool of more than 5300 items for substance use to 119 items included in field testing. Items were written in a first-person, past-tense format, with 5 response options reflecting frequency or severity. Both 30-day and 3-month time frames were tested. The calibration sample of 1336 respondents included 875 individuals from the general population (ascertained through an internet panel) and 461 patients from addiction treatment centers participating in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. RESULTS: Final banks of 37 and 18 items were calibrated for severity of substance use and positive appeal of substance use, respectively, using the two-parameter graded response model from item response theory (IRT). Initial calibrations were similar for the 30-day and 3-month time frames, and final calibrations used data combined across the time frames, making the items applicable with either interval. Seven-item static short forms were also developed from each item bank. CONCLUSIONS: Test information curves showed that the PROMIS item banks provided substantial information in a broad range of severity, making them suitable for treatment, observational, and epidemiological research in both clinical and community settings.
Authors: Daniel J Buysse; Lan Yu; Douglas E Moul; Anne Germain; Angela Stover; Nathan E Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Melissa A Shablesky-Cade; Paul A Pilkonis Journal: Sleep Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Dennis A Revicki; Wen-Hung Chen; Neesha Harnam; Karon F Cook; Dagmar Amtmann; Leigh F Callahan; Mark P Jensen; Francis J Keefe Journal: Pain Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Paul A Pilkonis; Lan Yu; Nathan E Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Suzanne M Lawrence; Thomas F Hilton; Dennis C Daley; Ashwin A Patkar; Dennis McCarty Journal: Pain Med Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Paul A Pilkonis; Lan Yu; Nathan E Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Suzanne M Lawrence; Dennis C Daley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Brian Mustanski; David A Moskowitz; Kevin O Moran; Michael E Newcomb; Kathryn Macapagal; Carlos Rodriguez-Díaz; H Jonathon Rendina; Eric B Laber; Dennis H Li; Margaret Matson; Ali J Talan; Cynthia Cabral Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-08-11