Eisuke Segawa1, Benjamin Schalet2, David Cella2. 1. SK Data, Chicago, USA. eisuke.segawa@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), seven domains (Physical Function, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, Social Function, and Pain Interference) are packaged together as profiles. Each of these domains can also be assessed using computer adaptive tests (CATs) or short forms (SFs) of varying length (e.g., 4, 6, and 8 items). We compared the accuracy and number of items administrated of CAT versus each SF. METHODS: PROMIS instruments are scored using item response theory (IRT) with graded response model and reported as T scores (mean = 50, SD = 10). We simulated 10,000 subjects from the normal distribution with mean 60 for symptom scales and 40 for function scales, and standard deviation 10 in each domain. We considered a subject's score to be accurate when the standard error (SE) was less than 3.0. We recorded range of accurate scores (accurate range) and the number of items administrated. RESULTS: The average number of items administrated in CAT was 4.7 across all domains. The accurate range was wider for CAT compared to all SFs in each domain. CAT was notably better at extending the accurate range into very poor health for Fatigue, Physical Function, and Pain Interference. Most SFs provided reasonably wide accurate range. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to SFs, CATs provided the widest accurate range, with slightly more items than SF4 and less than SF6 and SF8. Most SFs, especially longer ones, provided reasonably wide accurate range.
PURPOSE: In the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), seven domains (Physical Function, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, Social Function, and Pain Interference) are packaged together as profiles. Each of these domains can also be assessed using computer adaptive tests (CATs) or short forms (SFs) of varying length (e.g., 4, 6, and 8 items). We compared the accuracy and number of items administrated of CAT versus each SF. METHODS: PROMIS instruments are scored using item response theory (IRT) with graded response model and reported as T scores (mean = 50, SD = 10). We simulated 10,000 subjects from the normal distribution with mean 60 for symptom scales and 40 for function scales, and standard deviation 10 in each domain. We considered a subject's score to be accurate when the standard error (SE) was less than 3.0. We recorded range of accurate scores (accurate range) and the number of items administrated. RESULTS: The average number of items administrated in CAT was 4.7 across all domains. The accurate range was wider for CAT compared to all SFs in each domain. CAT was notably better at extending the accurate range into very poor health for Fatigue, Physical Function, and Pain Interference. Most SFs provided reasonably wide accurate range. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to SFs, CATs provided the widest accurate range, with slightly more items than SF4 and less than SF6 and SF8. Most SFs, especially longer ones, provided reasonably wide accurate range.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computer adaptive testing (CAT); Item response theory; PROMIS; Short form
Authors: Mark Hansen; Li Cai; Brian D Stucky; Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Maria Orlando Edelen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Richard C Gershon; Molly V Wagster; Hugh C Hendrie; Nathan A Fox; Karon F Cook; Cindy J Nowinski Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Susan V Eisen; Mark R Schultz; Pengsheng Ni; Stephen M Haley; Eric G Smith; Avron Spiro; Princess E Osei-Bonsu; Sam Nordberg; Alan M Jette Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Robert D Gibbons; David J Weiss; Paul A Pilkonis; Ellen Frank; Tara Moore; Jong Bae Kim; David J Kupfer Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-11
Authors: James W Varni; Brooke Magnus; Brian D Stucky; Yang Liu; Hally Quinn; David Thissen; Heather E Gross; I-Chan Huang; Darren A DeWalt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Neil K Aaronson; Juan I Arraras; Wei-Chu Chie; Thierry Conroy; Anna Costantini; Linda Dirven; Peter Fayers; Eva-Maria Gamper; Johannes M Giesinger; Esther J J Habets; Eva Hammerlid; Jorunn Helbostad; Marianne J Hjermstad; Bernhard Holzner; Colin Johnson; Georg Kemmler; Madeleine T King; Stein Kaasa; Jon H Loge; Jaap C Reijneveld; Susanne Singer; Martin J B Taphoorn; Lise H Thamsborg; Krzysztof A Tomaszewski; Galina Velikova; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Teresa Young; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Pamela A Kisala; David Victorson; Natalie Pace; Allen W Heinemann; Seung W Choi; David S Tulsky Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Robert L Askew; Carmen E Capo-Lugo; Rajbeer Sangha; Andrew Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Ellen B M Elsman; Leo D Roorda; Nynke Smidt; Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Anne Thackeray; Robin L Marcus; Lan Yu; Polly McCracken; Beth Cardell; Janel Hanmer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Ruchi N Patel; Valeria G Esparza; Jin-Shei Lai; Elizabeth L Gray; Bryce B Reeve; Rowland W Chang; David Cella; Kaveh Ardalan Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 5.178
Authors: Amanda Sheffield Morris; Lauren Wakschlag; Sheila Krogh-Jespersen; Nathan Fox; Beth Planalp; Susan B Perlman; Lauren C Shuffrey; Beth Smith; Nicole E Lorenzo; Dima Amso; Claire D Coles; Scott P Johnson Journal: Advers Resil Sci Date: 2020-11-09