Mian Wang1, Ronald C Chen2,3,4, Deborah S Usinger2,3, Bryce B Reeve2,5. 1. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. mianwang@unc.edu. 2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate measurement invariance (phone interview vs computer self-administered survey) of 15 PROMIS measures responded by a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer survivors. METHODS: Participants were part of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study. Out of the 952 men who took the phone interview at 24 months post-treatment, 401 of them also completed the same survey online using a home computer. Unidimensionality of the PROMIS measures was examined using single-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models. Measurement invariance testing was conducted using longitudinal CFA via a model comparison approach. For strongly or partially strongly invariant measures, changes in the latent factors and factor autocorrelations were also estimated and tested. RESULTS: Six measures (sleep disturbance, sleep-related impairment, diarrhea, illness impact-negative, illness impact-positive, and global satisfaction with sex life) had locally dependent items, and therefore model modifications had to be made on these domains prior to measurement invariance testing. Overall, seven measures achieved strong invariance (all items had equal loadings and thresholds), and four measures achieved partial strong invariance (each measure had one item with unequal loadings and thresholds). Three measures (pain interference, interest in sexual activity, and global satisfaction with sex life) failed to establish configural invariance due to between-mode differences in factor patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of phone-based live interviewers in lieu of PC-based assessment (when needed) for many of the PROMIS measures.
PURPOSE: To evaluate measurement invariance (phone interview vs computer self-administered survey) of 15 PROMIS measures responded by a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer survivors. METHODS:Participants were part of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study. Out of the 952 men who took the phone interview at 24 months post-treatment, 401 of them also completed the same survey online using a home computer. Unidimensionality of the PROMIS measures was examined using single-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models. Measurement invariance testing was conducted using longitudinal CFA via a model comparison approach. For strongly or partially strongly invariant measures, changes in the latent factors and factor autocorrelations were also estimated and tested. RESULTS: Six measures (sleep disturbance, sleep-related impairment, diarrhea, illness impact-negative, illness impact-positive, and global satisfaction with sex life) had locally dependent items, and therefore model modifications had to be made on these domains prior to measurement invariance testing. Overall, seven measures achieved strong invariance (all items had equal loadings and thresholds), and four measures achieved partial strong invariance (each measure had one item with unequal loadings and thresholds). Three measures (pain interference, interest in sexual activity, and global satisfaction with sex life) failed to establish configural invariance due to between-mode differences in factor patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of phone-based live interviewers in lieu of PC-based assessment (when needed) for many of the PROMIS measures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Measurement invariance; Mode of administration; PROMIS; Prostate cancer
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ronald C Chen; William R Carpenter; Mimi Kim; Laura H Hendrix; Robert P Agans; Anne-Marie Meyer; Anna Hoffmeyer; Bryce B Reeve; Matthew E Nielsen; Deborah S Usinger; Tara S Strigo; Anne M Jackman; Mary Anderson; Paul A Godley Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.744
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: 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: 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: Kevin P Weinfurt; Li Lin; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Jill M Cyranowski; Carrie B Dombeck; Elizabeth A Hahn; Diana D Jeffery; Richard M Luecht; Susan Magasi; Laura S Porter; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Bryce B Reeve; Rebecca A Shelby; Ashley Wilder Smith; John T Willse; Kathryn E Flynn Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Mian Wang; Kevin Weinfurt; Kathryn E Flynn; Deborah S Usinger; Ronald C Chen Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.802
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: Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Michael A Kallen; Tracey A Brickell; Rael T Lange; Nicholas R Boileau; David Tulsky; Robin A Hanks; Jill P Massengale; Risa Nakase-Richardson; Phillip A Ianni; Jennifer A Miner; Louis M French; Angelle M Sander Journal: Rehabil Psychol Date: 2019-10-03
Authors: Martin G Seneviratne; Selen Bozkurt; Manali I Patel; Tina Seto; James D Brooks; Douglas W Blayney; Allison W Kurian; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 6.921