Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. / Bjorner, Jakob B; Rose, Matthias; Gandek, Barbara; Stone, Arthur A; Junghaenel, Doerte U; Ware, John E.
In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 67, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 108-13.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity
AU - Bjorner, Jakob B
AU - Rose, Matthias
AU - Gandek, Barbara
AU - Stone, Arthur A
AU - Junghaenel, Doerte U
AU - Ware, John E
N1 - Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity.RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR.CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity.RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR.CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.
KW - Adolescent
KW - Adult
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Cross-Over Studies
KW - Data Collection
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
KW - Patient Preference
KW - Psychometrics
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Young Adult
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 24262772
VL - 67
SP - 108
EP - 113
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
SN - 0895-4356
IS - 1
ER -
ID: 138213518