David S Tulsky1,2, Pamela A Kisala3, Aaron J Boulton3, Alan M Jette4, David Thissen5, Pengsheng Ni6, Darren A DeWalt5, I-Chan Huang7,8, Yang Liu9, M J Mulcahey10, Mary Slavin6, Brooke Magnus11, Holly Crump5, Robin Hanks12, Susan Charlifue13, Bryce B Reeve14. 1. Center for Health Assessment Research and Translation, University of Delaware, STAR Health Sciences Complex, 540 South College Ave, Newark, DE, 10713, USA. dtulsky@udel.edu. 2. Departments of Physical Therapy and Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA. dtulsky@udel.edu. 3. Center for Health Assessment Research and Translation, University of Delaware, STAR Health Sciences Complex, 540 South College Ave, Newark, DE, 10713, USA. 4. MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, USA. 5. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 8. Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 9. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 10. Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 11. Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 12. Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Detroit, USA. 13. Craig Hospital, Englewood, CO, USA. 14. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Having independent versions of the PROMIS® scales (for Pediatric and Adults) is problematic as scores cannot be evaluated longitudinally as individuals move from childhood into adulthood. The primary aim of this research project is to use item response theory (IRT) to develop a transitional scoring link (or "crosswalk") between the PROMIS adult and pediatric physical health measures. SETTING: Sample 1 was collected at 6 rehabilitation hospitals in the U.S., and participants in Sample 2 were recruited from public health insurance programs and an online research panel. METHODS: PROMIS pediatric and adult physical function, mobility, upper extremity, fatigue, and pain measures were administered to a sample of 874 individuals aged 14-20 years old with special health needs and a sample of 641 individuals aged 14-25 years with a disability. IRT-based scores were linked using a linear approximation to calibrated projection. RESULTS: Estimated latent variable correlations ranged between 0.84 and 0.95 for the PROMIS pediatric and adult scores. Root Expected Mean Square Difference values were below the 0.08 threshold in all cases except when comparing genders on the Mobility (0.097) and Pain (0.10) scales in the special health care needs sample. Sum score conversion tables for the pediatric and adult PROMIS measures are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The linking coefficients can be used to calculate scale scores on PROMIS adult measures from pediatric measure scores and vice versa. This may lead to more accurate measurement in cross-sectional studies spanning multiple age groups or longitudinal studies that require comparable measurement across distinct developmental stages.
PURPOSE: Having independent versions of the PROMIS® scales (for Pediatric and Adults) is problematic as scores cannot be evaluated longitudinally as individuals move from childhood into adulthood. The primary aim of this research project is to use item response theory (IRT) to develop a transitional scoring link (or "crosswalk") between the PROMIS adult and pediatric physical health measures. SETTING: Sample 1 was collected at 6 rehabilitation hospitals in the U.S., and participants in Sample 2 were recruited from public health insurance programs and an online research panel. METHODS: PROMIS pediatric and adult physical function, mobility, upper extremity, fatigue, and pain measures were administered to a sample of 874 individuals aged 14-20 years old with special health needs and a sample of 641 individuals aged 14-25 years with a disability. IRT-based scores were linked using a linear approximation to calibrated projection. RESULTS: Estimated latent variable correlations ranged between 0.84 and 0.95 for the PROMIS pediatric and adult scores. Root Expected Mean Square Difference values were below the 0.08 threshold in all cases except when comparing genders on the Mobility (0.097) and Pain (0.10) scales in the special health care needs sample. Sum score conversion tables for the pediatric and adult PROMIS measures are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The linking coefficients can be used to calculate scale scores on PROMIS adult measures from pediatric measure scores and vice versa. This may lead to more accurate measurement in cross-sectional studies spanning multiple age groups or longitudinal studies that require comparable measurement across distinct developmental stages.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fatigue; Mobility limitation; Pain; Patient-reported outcome measures; Psychometrics; Test equating; Test linking
Authors: M McPherson; P Arango; H Fox; C Lauver; M McManus; P W Newacheck; J M Perrin; J P Shonkoff; B Strickland Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; David Thissen; Darren A DeWalt; I-Chan Huang; Yang Liu; Brooke Magnus; Hally Quinn; Heather E Gross; Pamela A Kisala; Pengsheng Ni; Stephen Haley; M J Mulcahey; Susie Charlifue; Robin A Hanks; Mary Slavin; Alan Jette; David S Tulsky Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Debra E Irwin; Brian D Stucky; David Thissen; Esi Morgan Dewitt; Jin Shei Lai; Karin Yeatts; James W Varni; Darren A DeWalt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Richard Gershon; Nan E Rothrock; Rachel T Hanrahan; Liz J Jansky; Mark Harniss; William Riley Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Louis S Matza; Andrine R Swensen; Emuella M Flood; Kristina Secnik; Nancy Kline Leidy Journal: Value Health Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: John M Salsman; Suzanne C Danhauer; Justin B Moore; Mollie R Canzona; David E Victorson; Bradley J Zebrack; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amy M Berkman; Karly M Murphy; Elizabeth J Siembida; Nancy Lau; Yimin Geng; Susan K Parsons; John M Salsman; Michael E Roth Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Elizabeth Marfeo; Pengsheng Ni; Chun Wang; David Weiss; Andrea L Cheville Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Abby L Cheng; Reid W Collis; Andrea B McCullough; Mary Bui; Brian K Brady; Matthew J Schuelke; John C Clohisy; Graham A Colditz; Heidi Prather Journal: PM R Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 2.218
Authors: Eric W Guo; Austin G Cross; Luke Hessburg; Dylan Koolmees; David N Bernstein; Kareem G Elhage; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Elizabeth J Siembida; Bryce B Reeve; Brad J Zebrack; Mallory A Snyder; John M Salsman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Linda A T Jones; Chih-Ying Li; David Weitzenkamp; John Steeves; Susie Charlifue; Gale Whiteneck Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Shannon L Murphy; John D Mahan; Jonathan P Troost; Tarak Srivastava; Amy J Kogon; Yi Cai; T Keefe Davis; Hilda Fernandez; Alessia Fornoni; Rasheed A Gbadegesin; Emily Herreshoff; Pietro A Canetta; Patrick H Nachman; Bryce B Reeve; David T Selewski; Christine B Sethna; Chia-Shi Wang; Sharon M Bartosh; Debbie S Gipson; Katherine R Tuttle Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2020-07-23