Pamela A Kisala1, Aaron J Boulton1, Matthew L Cohen2, Mary D Slavin3, Alan M Jette4, Susan Charlifue5, Robin Hanks6, M J Mulcahey7, David Cella8, David S Tulsky9. 1. Center for Health Assessment Research and Translation, College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware. 2. Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware. 3. Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital Institute of Health Professions. 5. Craig Hospital. 6. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wayne State University School of Medicine. 7. Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University. 8. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. 9. Center for Health Assessment Research and Translation, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess differential item functioning and observed mean differences across two modes of administration for PROMIS® measure scores in a sample of adults with traumatic injury. METHOD: Items from 7 PROMIS® adult measures (v1.0 Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference, Anger, Anxiety, and Depression and v2.0 Social Health-Emotional Support) were administered as fixed-length short forms in random order to a cross-sectional sample. Participants were randomly assigned to interviewer-administered (phone or in-person) or self-administered (via the Assessment Center website) conditions. The research was conducted at 5 medical rehabilitation institutions across the U.S. Participants included 277 adults with spinal cord injury (n = 148) or traumatic brain injury (n = 129). RESULTS: DIF analyses indicated that all items were invariant to mode of administration. There was no significant effect of mode of administration for the majority of PROMIS® measures tested. Regarding observed scores, there were small but significant effects of mode of administration on the Emotional Support and Depression measures, with participants in the interview condition reporting better support/fewer symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:PROMIS® instruments demonstrated measurement equivalence across interviewer-administered and self-administered conditions. These findings are particularly important for research or clinical applications where administration of PROMIS® measures by independent web- or tablet-based administration is not ideal, for example with individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities or with individuals who lack computer and/or Internet access. PROMIS®v1.0 Depression and PROMIS® v2.0 Emotional Support scores displayed a tendency toward social desirability that should be considered when these measures are interviewer-administered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess differential item functioning and observed mean differences across two modes of administration for PROMIS® measure scores in a sample of adults with traumatic injury. METHOD: Items from 7 PROMIS® adult measures (v1.0 Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference, Anger, Anxiety, and Depression and v2.0 Social Health-Emotional Support) were administered as fixed-length short forms in random order to a cross-sectional sample. Participants were randomly assigned to interviewer-administered (phone or in-person) or self-administered (via the Assessment Center website) conditions. The research was conducted at 5 medical rehabilitation institutions across the U.S. Participants included 277 adults with spinal cord injury (n = 148) or traumatic brain injury (n = 129). RESULTS:DIF analyses indicated that all items were invariant to mode of administration. There was no significant effect of mode of administration for the majority of PROMIS® measures tested. Regarding observed scores, there were small but significant effects of mode of administration on the Emotional Support and Depression measures, with participants in the interview condition reporting better support/fewer symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS® instruments demonstrated measurement equivalence across interviewer-administered and self-administered conditions. These findings are particularly important for research or clinical applications where administration of PROMIS® measures by independent web- or tablet-based administration is not ideal, for example with individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities or with individuals who lack computer and/or Internet access. PROMIS® v1.0 Depression and PROMIS® v2.0 Emotional Support scores displayed a tendency toward social desirability that should be considered when these measures are interviewer-administered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Clifton O Bingham; Susan J Bartlett; Peter A Merkel; Thelma J Mielenz; Paul A Pilkonis; Lauren Edmundson; Emily Moore; Rajeev K Sabharwal Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella; Deborah Dobrez; Gail Shiomoto; Elizabeth Marcus; Samuel G Taylor; Mala Vohra; Chih-Hung Chang; Benjamin D Wright; John M Linacre; Barry D Weiss; Veronica Valenzuela; Hsaio-Lin Chiang; Kimberly Webster Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Heather T Keenan; Amy E Clark; Richard Holubkov; Charles S Cox; Rajan P Patel; Kevin R Moore; Linda Ewing-Cobbs Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.269
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: Kimberly S Esham; Angie Mae Rodday; Hedy P Smith; Farzad Noubary; Ruth Ann Weidner; Rachel J Buchsbaum; Susan K Parsons Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-01-14
Authors: Dagmar Amtmann; Alyssa M Bamer; Kara McMullen; Nicole S Gibran; Jeanne M Hoffman; Charles H Bombardier; Gretchen J Carrougher Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Kirsten Kortram; Nando Ferreira; Mario Morgenstern; Alexander Joeris; Hans-Christoph Pape; Christian Kammerlander; Sanjit Konda; Jong-Keon Oh; Peter V Giannoudis; Kenneth A Egol; William T Obremskey; Michael H J Verhofstad; Michael Raschke Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Nicholas R Boileau; Matthew W Roché; Rebecca E Ready; Joel S Perlmutter; Kelvin L Chou; Stacey K Barton; Michael K McCormack; Julie C Stout; David Cella; Jennifer A Miner; Jane S Paulsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: John T Wilkinson; Jordan W Clawson; Chelsea M Allen; Angela P Presson; Andrew R Tyser; Nikolas H Kazmers Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.230