OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based review of adolescent self-report depression measures and to demonstrate how various measures can be rescored onto a harmonized metric. METHOD: Six widely used person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed. Psychometric properties were evaluated using previously published guidance for PROMs. Next, two secondary data sources (from an outpatient behavioral health clinic and from the general population) were evaluated to harmonize scores across three of the measures. Both item response theory and equipercentile linking methods were used and compared. RESULTS: All six PROMs demonstrated a high evidence base for widespread use depending on the purpose of the assessments. Adolescent involvement when developing the PROM for content validity and floor or ceiling effects were the least frequent available evidence. Three of the PROMs were linked to the PROMIS® Pediatric Depressive Symptoms v2.0 (PROMIS-PedDepSx) metric. The scales were highly correlated and essentially unidimensional when aggregated. All linking methods were broadly comparable. Group-level score conversions are recommended to minimize linking bias. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of strong, widely used PROMs for the evidence-based assessment (EBD) of adolescent depression. However, score comparability is a concern whenever there is a proliferation of measures. Harmonized score metrics support data aggregation and re-analysis. Using four PROMs, one of which served as the scoring metric, we demonstrated the possibility of harmonized depression scores. Future directions for EBD should evaluate whether harmonized PROMs for other pediatric health domains would be useful.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based review of adolescent self-report depression measures and to demonstrate how various measures can be rescored onto a harmonized metric. METHOD: Six widely used person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed. Psychometric properties were evaluated using previously published guidance for PROMs. Next, two secondary data sources (from an outpatient behavioral health clinic and from the general population) were evaluated to harmonize scores across three of the measures. Both item response theory and equipercentile linking methods were used and compared. RESULTS: All six PROMs demonstrated a high evidence base for widespread use depending on the purpose of the assessments. Adolescent involvement when developing the PROM for content validity and floor or ceiling effects were the least frequent available evidence. Three of the PROMs were linked to the PROMIS® Pediatric Depressive Symptoms v2.0 (PROMIS-PedDepSx) metric. The scales were highly correlated and essentially unidimensional when aggregated. All linking methods were broadly comparable. Group-level score conversions are recommended to minimize linking bias. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of strong, widely used PROMs for the evidence-based assessment (EBD) of adolescent depression. However, score comparability is a concern whenever there is a proliferation of measures. Harmonized score metrics support data aggregation and re-analysis. Using four PROMs, one of which served as the scoring metric, we demonstrated the possibility of harmonized depression scores. Future directions for EBD should evaluate whether harmonized PROMs for other pediatric health domains would be useful.
Authors: David T Selewski; Susan F Massengill; Jonathan P Troost; Larysa Wickman; Kassandra L Messer; Emily Herreshoff; Corinna Bowers; Maria E Ferris; John D Mahan; Larry A Greenbaum; Jackie MacHardy; Gaurav Kapur; Deepa H Chand; Jens Goebel; Gina Marie Barletta; Denis Geary; David B Kershaw; Cynthia G Pan; Rasheed Gbadegesin; Guillermo Hidalgo; Jerome C Lane; Jeffrey D Leiser; Peter X Song; David Thissen; Yang Liu; Heather E Gross; Darren A DeWalt; Debbie S Gipson Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: David Thissen; Yang Liu; Brooke Magnus; Hally Quinn; Debbie S Gipson; Carlton Dampier; I-Chan Huang; Pamela S Hinds; David T Selewski; Bryce B Reeve; Heather E Gross; Darren A DeWalt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Darren A DeWalt; Heather E Gross; Debbie S Gipson; David T Selewski; Esi Morgan DeWitt; Carlton D Dampier; Pamela S Hinds; I-Chan Huang; David Thissen; James W Varni Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul A Pilkonis; Seung W Choi; John M Salsman; Zeeshan Butt; Tara L Moore; Suzanne M Lawrence; Nicholas Zill; Jill M Cyranowski; Morgen A R Kelly; Sarah S Knox; David Cella Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Anna K Ettinger; Doug Landsittel; Kaleab Z Abebe; Jamil Bey; Val Chavis; Judith D Navratil; Felicia Savage Friedman; Terence S Dermody; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Kathryn Dahir; Ruban Dhaliwal; Jill Simmons; Erik A Imel; Gary S Gottesman; John D Mahan; Gnanagurudasan Prakasam; Allison I Hoch; Prameela Ramesan; Maria Díaz-González de Ferris Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 5.958