Literature DB >> 31701432

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PROMIS; Patient reported outcomes; Physical function; Recall period

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31701432      PMCID: PMC7199782          DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02344-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  41 in total

1.  Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS Anxiety.

Authors:  Benjamin D Schalet; Karon F Cook; Seung W Choi; David Cella
Journal:  J Anxiety Disord       Date:  2013-12-01

2.  Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys.

Authors:  N M Bradburn; L J Rips; S K Shevell
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-04-10       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel.

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

4.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

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

5.  Psychometric Properties of 7- and 30-Day Versions of the PROMIS Emotional Distress Item Banks in an Australian Adult Sample.

Authors:  Philip J Batterham; Matthew Sunderland; Natacha Carragher; Alison L Calear
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2017-01-04

6.  Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review.

Authors:  Darren A DeWalt; Nan Rothrock; Susan Yount; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

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

8.  The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency.

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

9.  The FACT-G7: a rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research.

Authors:  B Yanez; T Pearman; C G Lis; J L Beaumont; D Cella
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Dennis A Revicki; Karen L Spritzer; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  6 in total

1.  Daily Variation in Sleep Quality is Associated With Health-Related Quality of Life in People With Spinal Cord Injury.

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

2.  Selecting, Administering, and Interpreting Outcome Measures among Adults with Lower-Limb Loss: An Update for Clinicians.

Authors:  Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Mayank Seth
Journal:  Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep       Date:  2020-08-03

3.  Towards an ICF-based self-report questionnaire for people with skeletal dysplasia to study health, functioning, disability and accessibility.

Authors:  Heidi Anttila; Susanna Tallqvist; Minna Muñoz; Sanna Leppäjoki-Tiistola; Outi Mäkitie; Sinikka Hiekkala
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 4.123

4.  Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Differential Item Functioning of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS vs. 2.0): A Measure of Treatment Burden.

Authors:  Minji K Lee; Jennifer L St Sauver; Roger T Anderson; Mark Linzer; David T Eton
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2021-01-05

5.  Self-reported physical activity, sitting time, and mental and physical health among older cancer survivors compared with adults without a history of cancer.

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

6.  Development of social contact and loneliness measures with validation in social prescribing.

Authors:  Tim Benson; Helen Seers; Nicola Webb; Philippa McMahon
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2021-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.