John M Salsman1,2, Crystal L Park3, Elizabeth A Hahn4,5, Mallory A Snyder6, Login S George7, Michael F Steger8, Thomas Merluzzi9, David Cella4,5. 1. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA. jsalsman@wakehealth.edu. 2. Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. jsalsman@wakehealth.edu. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. 4. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 9. Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a National Institutes of Health initiative designed to improve patient-reported outcomes using state-of-the-art psychometric methods. The aim of this study is to describe qualitative efforts to identify and refine items from psychological well-being subdomains for future testing, psychometric evaluation, and inclusion within PROMIS. METHOD: Seventy-two items from eight existing measures of positive affect, life satisfaction, meaning & purpose, and general self-efficacy were reviewed, and 48 new items were identified or written where content was lacking. Cognitive interviews were conducted in patients with cancer (n = 20; 5 interviews per item) to evaluate comprehensibility, clarity, and response options of candidate items. RESULTS: A Lexile analysis confirmed that all items were written at the sixth grade reading level or below. A majority of patients demonstrated good understanding and logic for all items; however, nine items were identified as "moderately difficult" or "difficult" to answer. Patients reported a strong preference for confidence versus frequency response options for general self-efficacy items. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, 108 items were sufficiently comprehensible and clear (34 positive affect, 10 life satisfaction, 44 meaning & purpose, 20 general self-efficacy). Future research will examine the psychometric properties of the proposed item banks for further refinement and validation as PROMIS measures.
PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a National Institutes of Health initiative designed to improve patient-reported outcomes using state-of-the-art psychometric methods. The aim of this study is to describe qualitative efforts to identify and refine items from psychological well-being subdomains for future testing, psychometric evaluation, and inclusion within PROMIS. METHOD: Seventy-two items from eight existing measures of positive affect, life satisfaction, meaning & purpose, and general self-efficacy were reviewed, and 48 new items were identified or written where content was lacking. Cognitive interviews were conducted in patients with cancer (n = 20; 5 interviews per item) to evaluate comprehensibility, clarity, and response options of candidate items. RESULTS: A Lexile analysis confirmed that all items were written at the sixth grade reading level or below. A majority of patients demonstrated good understanding and logic for all items; however, nine items were identified as "moderately difficult" or "difficult" to answer. Patients reported a strong preference for confidence versus frequency response options for general self-efficacy items. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, 108 items were sufficiently comprehensible and clear (34 positive affect, 10 life satisfaction, 44 meaning & purpose, 20 general self-efficacy). Future research will examine the psychometric properties of the proposed item banks for further refinement and validation as PROMIS measures.
Authors: Michael F Scheier; Carsten Wrosch; Andrew Baum; Sheldon Cohen; Lynn M Martire; Karen A Matthews; Richard Schulz; Bozena Zdaniuk Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2006-03-24
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: Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer; Janine Devine; Katherine Bevans; Anne W Riley; Jeanhee Moon; John M Salsman; Christopher B Forrest Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: John M Salsman; Jin-Shei Lai; Hugh C Hendrie; Zeeshan Butt; Nicholas Zill; Paul A Pilkonis; Christopher Peterson; Catherine M Stoney; Pim Brouwers; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-06-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: John M Salsman; Benjamin D Schalet; Crystal L Park; Login George; Michael F Steger; Elizabeth A Hahn; Mallory A Snyder; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Patricia I Moreno; Fiona S Horner; Joanna B Torzewski; Jessica L Thomas; William Gradishar; David Victorson; Frank J Penedo Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-12-17
Authors: Ashley M Campbell; Carlos F De La Cruz-Herrera; Edyta Marcon; Jack Greenblatt; Lori Frappier Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 6.823