OBJECTIVE: The 22-item PROMIS®-Rx Pain Medication Misuse item bank (Bank-22) imposes a high response burden. This study aimed to characterize the performance of the Bank-22 in a computer adaptive testing (CAT) setting based on varied stopping rules. METHODS: The 22 items were administered to 288 patients. We performed a CAT simulation using default stopping rules (CATPROMIS). In 5 other simulations, a "best health" response rule was added to decrease response burden. This rule stopped CAT administration when a participant selected "never" to a specified number of initial Bank-22 items (2-6 in this study, designated CATAlt2-Alt6). The Bank-22 and 7-item short form (SF-7) scores were compared to scores based on CATPROMIS, and the 5 CAT variations. RESULTS: Bank-22 scores correlated highly with the SF-7 and CATPROMIS, Alt5, Alt6 scores (r=0.87-0.95) and moderately with CATAlt2- Alt4 scores (r=0.63-0.74). In all CAT conditions, the greatest differences with Bank-22 scores were at the lower end of misuse T-scores. The smallest differences with Bank-22 and CATPROMIS scores were observed with CATAlt5 and CATAlt6. Compared to the SF-7, CATAlt5 and CATAlt6 reduced overall response burden by about 42%. Finally, the correlations between PROMIS-Rx Misuse and Anxiety T-scores remained relatively unchanged across the conditions (r=0.31-0.43, Ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Applying a stopping rule based on number of initial "best health" responses reduced response burden for respondents with lower levels of misuse. The tradeoff was less measurement precision for those individuals, which could be an acceptable tradeoff when the chief concern is in discriminating higher levels of misuse.
OBJECTIVE: The 22-item PROMIS®-Rx Pain Medication Misuse item bank (Bank-22) imposes a high response burden. This study aimed to characterize the performance of the Bank-22 in a computer adaptive testing (CAT) setting based on varied stopping rules. METHODS: The 22 items were administered to 288 patients. We performed a CAT simulation using default stopping rules (CATPROMIS). In 5 other simulations, a "best health" response rule was added to decrease response burden. This rule stopped CAT administration when a participant selected "never" to a specified number of initial Bank-22 items (2-6 in this study, designated CATAlt2-Alt6). The Bank-22 and 7-item short form (SF-7) scores were compared to scores based on CATPROMIS, and the 5 CAT variations. RESULTS: Bank-22 scores correlated highly with the SF-7 and CATPROMIS, Alt5, Alt6 scores (r=0.87-0.95) and moderately with CATAlt2- Alt4 scores (r=0.63-0.74). In all CAT conditions, the greatest differences with Bank-22 scores were at the lower end of misuse T-scores. The smallest differences with Bank-22 and CATPROMIS scores were observed with CATAlt5 and CATAlt6. Compared to the SF-7, CATAlt5 and CATAlt6 reduced overall response burden by about 42%. Finally, the correlations between PROMIS-Rx Misuse and Anxiety T-scores remained relatively unchanged across the conditions (r=0.31-0.43, Ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Applying a stopping rule based on number of initial "best health" responses reduced response burden for respondents with lower levels of misuse. The tradeoff was less measurement precision for those individuals, which could be an acceptable tradeoff when the chief concern is in discriminating higher levels of misuse.
Authors: Michael A Kallen; Karon F Cook; Dagmar Amtmann; Elizabeth Knowlton; Richard C Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Dokyoung Sophia You; Jennifer M Hah; Sophie Collins; Maisa S Ziadni; Ben W Domingue; Karon F Cook; Sean C Mackey Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Shannon M Smith; Richard C Dart; Nathaniel P Katz; Florence Paillard; Edgar H Adams; Sandra D Comer; Aldemar Degroot; Robert R Edwards; David J Haddox; Jerome H Jaffe; Christopher M Jones; Herbert D Kleber; Ernest A Kopecky; John D Markman; Ivan D Montoya; Charles O'Brien; Carl L Roland; Marsha Stanton; Eric C Strain; Gary Vorsanger; Ajay D Wasan; Roger D Weiss; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin Journal: Pain Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Nikolas H Kazmers; Man Hung; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren W Voss; Abby Howenstein; Andrew R Tyser Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Paul A Pilkonis; Lan Yu; Nathan Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Susan Yount; William Riley; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Laura L Adams; Robert J Gatchel; Richard C Robinson; Peter Polatin; Noor Gajraj; Martin Deschner; Carl Noe Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: T Petra Rausch-Koster; Michiel A J Luijten; F D Verbraak; Ger H M B van Rens; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.283