Kerrie Clover1,2, Sylvie D Lambert3, Christopher Oldmeadow4, Benjamin Britton5, Madeleine T King6, Alex J Mitchell7, Gregory Carter5,8. 1. Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2298, Australia. kerrie.clover@calvarymater.org.au. 2. Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia. kerrie.clover@calvarymater.org.au. 3. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University & St. Marys' Research Centre, Wilson Hall, 3506 Sherbrooke Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada. 4. Clinical Research Design, Information Technology and Statistical Support (CReDITSS) Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW, Australia. 5. Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2298, Australia. 6. School of Psychology and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. 7. University of Leicester, Cancer & Molecular Medicine, University Road, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK. 8. Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the convergent validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression measures relative to legacy measures and criterion validity against a structured diagnostic interview for depression in an oncology sample. METHODS: 132 oncology/haematology outpatients completed the PROMIS Depression Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-D-CAT) and PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF) along with seven legacy measures: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire; Distress Thermometer and PSYCH-6. Correlations, area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated with Structured Clinical Interview as the gold standard. RESULTS: Both PROMIS measures correlated with all legacy measures at p < .001 (ρ = 0.589-0.810) and all AUCs (> 0.800) were comparable. At the cut-off points for mild depression of 53, the PROMIS measures had sensitivity (0.83 for PROMIS-D-CAT and 0.80 for PROMIS-D-SF) similar to or better than 6/7 legacy measures with high negative predictive value (> 90%). At cut-off points of 60 for moderate depression, PROMIS measures had specificity > 90%, similar to or better than all legacy measures and positive predictive value ≥ 0.50 (similar to 5/7 legacy measures). CONCLUSIONS: The convergent and criterion validity of the PROMIS depression measures in cancer populations was confirmed, although the optimal cut-off points are not established. PROMIS measures were briefer than BDI-II and CES-D but do not offer any advance in terms of diagnostic accuracy, reduced response burden or cost over other legacy measures of depression in oncology patients.
PURPOSE: To assess the convergent validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression measures relative to legacy measures and criterion validity against a structured diagnostic interview for depression in an oncology sample. METHODS: 132 oncology/haematology outpatients completed the PROMIS Depression Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-D-CAT) and PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF) along with seven legacy measures: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire; Distress Thermometer and PSYCH-6. Correlations, area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated with Structured Clinical Interview as the gold standard. RESULTS: Both PROMIS measures correlated with all legacy measures at p < .001 (ρ = 0.589-0.810) and all AUCs (> 0.800) were comparable. At the cut-off points for mild depression of 53, the PROMIS measures had sensitivity (0.83 for PROMIS-D-CAT and 0.80 for PROMIS-D-SF) similar to or better than 6/7 legacy measures with high negative predictive value (> 90%). At cut-off points of 60 for moderate depression, PROMIS measures had specificity > 90%, similar to or better than all legacy measures and positive predictive value ≥ 0.50 (similar to 5/7 legacy measures). CONCLUSIONS: The convergent and criterion validity of the PROMIS depression measures in cancer populations was confirmed, although the optimal cut-off points are not established. PROMIS measures were briefer than BDI-II and CES-D but do not offer any advance in terms of diagnostic accuracy, reduced response burden or cost over other legacy measures of depression in oncology patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Depression; Psycho-oncology; Questionnaire development
Authors: Mark Lazenby; Elizabeth Ercolano; Marcia Grant; Jimmie C Holland; Paul B Jacobsen; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 3.840
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: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: George Baum; Karen Basen-Engquist; Maria C Swartz; Patricia A Parker; Cindy L Carmack Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-02-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Margaret D Whitley; Ian D Coulter; Ryan W Gery; Ron D Hays; Cathy Sherbourne; Patricia M Herman; Lara G Hilton Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Shawn M McClintock; Robin B Dail; Laura S Howe-Martin; Tara K Mann; Donald E Bailey Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 2.760
Authors: Olivia R Stockly; Audrey E Wolfe; Richard Goldstein; Kimberly Roaten; Shelley Wiechman; Nhi-Ha Trinh; Jeremy Goverman; Frederick J Stoddard; Ross Zafonte; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 1.819
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Rina S Fox; Laura B Oswald; Patricia I Moreno; Cody L Boland; Ryne Estabrook; Heather L McGinty; David C Mohr; Mark J Begale; Jason R Dahn; Sarah C Flury; Kent T Perry; Shilajit D Kundu; Betina Yanez Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2020-10
Authors: Ali Aneizi; Dominique Gelmann; Dominic J Ventimiglia; Patrick M J Sajak; Vidushan Nadarajah; Michael J Foster; Tristan B Weir; Ngozi M Akabudike; Raymond A Pensy; R Frank Henn Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2021-01-19
Authors: Koen van Maren; Laura E Brown; Teun Cremers; Michael Zoulfi Khatiri; David Ring; Amirreza Fatehi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Christopher L Crowe; Sneha Kannoth; Howard Andrews; David Strogatz; Guohua Li; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Linda Hill; David W Eby; Lisa J Molnar; Thelma J Mielenz Journal: Geriatrics (Basel) Date: 2020-03-19