David M Condon1, Robert Chapman1, Sara Shaunfield1, Michael A Kallen1, Jennifer L Beaumont1,2, Daniel Eek3, Debanjali Mitra4, Katy L Benjamin5, Kelly McQuarrie6, Jamae Liu7, James W Shaw8, Allison Martin Nguyen9, Karen Keating10, David Cella11. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Terasaki Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 5. Health Economics and Outcomes Research, AbbvVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Janssen Global Services, Malvern, PA, USA. 7. Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. 8. Worldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA. 9. Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. 10. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., West Haven, CT, USA. 11. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. d-cella@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods. METHODS: We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents (n = 1001 with cancer; n = 1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three recall conditions (no recall, 24-hours, or 7-days) and one of two "reminder" conditions (with recall periods presented only at the start of the survey or with every item). We assessed items for potential differential item functioning (DIF) by recall time period. We then tested recall and reminder effects with analysis of variance controlling for demographics, English fluency, and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Based on conservative pre-set criteria, no items were flagged for recall time period-related DIF. Using analysis of variance, each condition was compared to the standard PROMIS administration for Physical Function (no recall period). There was no evidence of significant differences among groups in the cancer sample. In the general population sample, only the 24-hour recall condition with reminders was significantly different from the "no recall" PROMIS standard. At the item level, for both samples, the number of items with non-trivial effect size differences across conditions was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no recall, the use of a recall period has little to no effect upon PROMIS physical function responses or scores. We recommend that PROMIS Physical Function be administered with the standard PROMIS "no recall" period.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods. METHODS: We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents (n = 1001 with cancer; n = 1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three recall conditions (no recall, 24-hours, or 7-days) and one of two "reminder" conditions (with recall periods presented only at the start of the survey or with every item). We assessed items for potential differential item functioning (DIF) by recall time period. We then tested recall and reminder effects with analysis of variance controlling for demographics, English fluency, and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Based on conservative pre-set criteria, no items were flagged for recall time period-related DIF. Using analysis of variance, each condition was compared to the standard PROMIS administration for Physical Function (no recall period). There was no evidence of significant differences among groups in the cancer sample. In the general population sample, only the 24-hour recall condition with reminders was significantly different from the "no recall" PROMIS standard. At the item level, for both samples, the number of items with non-trivial effect size differences across conditions was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no recall, the use of a recall period has little to no effect upon PROMIS physical function responses or scores. We recommend that PROMIS Physical Function be administered with the standard PROMIS "no recall" period.
Entities:
Keywords:
PROMIS; Patient reported outcomes; Physical function; Recall period
Authors: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
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: Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Anita Slade; An-Wen Chan; Madeleine T King; Amanda Hunn; Andrew Bottomley; Antoine Regnault; An-Wen Chan; Carolyn Ells; Daniel O'Connor; Dennis Revicki; Donald Patrick; Doug Altman; Ethan Basch; Galina Velikova; Gary Price; Heather Draper; Jane Blazeby; Jane Scott; Joanna Coast; Josephine Norquist; Julia Brown; Kirstie Haywood; Laura Lee Johnson; Lisa Campbell; Lori Frank; Maria von Hildebrand; Michael Brundage; Michael Palmer; Paul Kluetz; Richard Stephens; Robert M Golub; Sandra Mitchell; Trish Groves Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Jenna Freedman; Jonathan P Troost; Traci Carson; Ivan R Molton; Dawn M Ehde; Kayvan Najarian; Jennifer A Miner; Nicholas R Boileau; Anna L Kratz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Erika Rees-Punia; Alpa V Patel; Joseph R Nocera; Sicha Chantaprasopsuk; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Corinne R Leach; Tenbroeck G Smith; David Cella; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 6.921