Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2022

20-01-2022

Differential item functioning to validate setting of delivery compatibility in PROMIS-global health

Auteurs: Dylan J. Parker, Paul M. Werth, David D. Christensen, David S. Jevsevar

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) such as PROMIS are increasingly utilized in healthcare to assess patient perception and functional status, but the effect of delivery setting remains to be fully investigated. To our knowledge, no current study establishes the absence of differential item functioning (DIF) across delivery setting for these PROMIS- Global Health (PROMIS-GH) measures among orthopedic patients. We sought to investigate the correlation of PROMIS-GH scores across in-clinic versus remote delivery by evaluating DIF within the Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) items. We hypothesize that the setting of delivery of the GPH and GMH domains of PROMIS-GH will not impact the results of the measure, allowing direct comparison between the two delivery settings.

Methods

Five thousand and seven hundred and eighty-five complete PROMIS-Global Health measures were analyzed retrospectively using the ‘Lordif’ package on the R platform. DIF was measured for GPH and GMH domains across setting of response (in-clinic vs remote) during the pre-operative period, immediate post-operative period, and 1-year post-operative period using Monte Carlo estimation. McFadden pseudo-R2 thresholds (> 0.02) were used to assess the magnitude of DIF for individual PROMIS items.

Results

No GPH or GMH items contained in the PROMIS-GH instrument yielded DIF across in-clinic vs remote delivery setting during the pre-operative, immediate post-operative, or 1-year post-operative window.

Conclusion

The GPH and GMH domains within the PROMIS-GH instrument may be delivered in the clinic or remotely with comparable accuracy. This cross-delivery setting validation analysis may aid to improve the quality of patient care by allowing mixed platform PROMIS-GH data tailored to individual patient circumstance.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Lavallee, D. C., Chenok, K. E., Love, R. M., Petersen, C., Holve, E., Segal, C. D., & Franklin, P. D. (2016). Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff (Millwood), 35(4), 575–582.CrossRef Lavallee, D. C., Chenok, K. E., Love, R. M., Petersen, C., Holve, E., Segal, C. D., & Franklin, P. D. (2016). Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff (Millwood), 35(4), 575–582.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.PubMedCrossRef Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brodke, D. J., Saltzman, C. L., & Brodke, D. S. (2016). PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 24(11), 744–749.CrossRef Brodke, D. J., Saltzman, C. L., & Brodke, D. S. (2016). PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 24(11), 744–749.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fries, J. F., Witter, J., Rose, M., Cella, D., Khanna, D., & Morgan-DeWitt, E. (2014). Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: Assessment of physical function. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(1), 153–158.PubMedCrossRef Fries, J. F., Witter, J., Rose, M., Cella, D., Khanna, D., & Morgan-DeWitt, E. (2014). Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: Assessment of physical function. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(1), 153–158.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., Revicki, D. A., Weiss, D. J., Hambleton, R. K., Liu, H., Gershon, R., Reise, S. P., Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., OBOTPC Group. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRef Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., Revicki, D. A., Weiss, D. J., Hambleton, R. K., Liu, H., Gershon, R., Reise, S. P., Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., OBOTPC Group. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Crins, M. H. P., Terwee, C. B., Ogreden, O., Schuller, W., Dekker, P., Flens, G., Rohrich, D. C., & Roorda, L. D. (2019). Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Quality of Life Research, 28(5), 1231–1243.PubMedCrossRef Crins, M. H. P., Terwee, C. B., Ogreden, O., Schuller, W., Dekker, P., Flens, G., Rohrich, D. C., & Roorda, L. D. (2019). Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Quality of Life Research, 28(5), 1231–1243.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Amtmann, D., Molton, I. R., & Jensen, M. P. (2012). Six patient-reported outcome measurement information system short form measures have negligible age- or diagnosis-related differential item functioning in individuals with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(7), 1289–1291.PubMedCrossRef Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Amtmann, D., Molton, I. R., & Jensen, M. P. (2012). Six patient-reported outcome measurement information system short form measures have negligible age- or diagnosis-related differential item functioning in individuals with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(7), 1289–1291.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Goel, A., & Gross, A. (2019). Differential item functioning in the cognitive screener used in the longitudinal aging study in India. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(9), 1–11.CrossRef Goel, A., & Gross, A. (2019). Differential item functioning in the cognitive screener used in the longitudinal aging study in India. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(9), 1–11.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lamers, S.M., Glas, C.A., Westerhof, G.J., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). European journal of psychological assessment. Lamers, S.M., Glas, C.A., Westerhof, G.J., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). European journal of psychological assessment.
10.
go back to reference Naumann, A., Hochweber, J., & Hartig, J. (2014). Modeling instructional sensitivity using a longitudinal multilevel differential item functioning approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(4), 381–399.CrossRef Naumann, A., Hochweber, J., & Hartig, J. (2014). Modeling instructional sensitivity using a longitudinal multilevel differential item functioning approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(4), 381–399.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wang, M. (2016). Longitudinal differential item functioning detection using bifactor models and the Wald test. University of Kansas. Wang, M. (2016). Longitudinal differential item functioning detection using bifactor models and the Wald test. University of Kansas.
12.
go back to reference Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., Cook, K., Devellis, R., DeWalt, D., Fries, J. F., Gershon, R., Hahn, E. A., Lai, J. S., Pilkonis, P., Revicki, D., … PC Group. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., Cook, K., Devellis, R., DeWalt, D., Fries, J. F., Gershon, R., Hahn, E. A., Lai, J. S., Pilkonis, P., Revicki, D., … PC Group. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 15–21.PubMedCrossRef Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 15–21.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Campbell, N., Ali, F., Finlay, A. Y., & Salek, S. S. (2015). Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 1949–1961.PubMedCrossRef Campbell, N., Ali, F., Finlay, A. Y., & Salek, S. S. (2015). Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 1949–1961.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hartkopf, A. D., Graf, J., Simoes, E., Keilmann, L., Sickenberger, N., Gass, P., Wallwiener, D., Matthies, L., Taran, F.-A., Lux, M. P., Wallwiener, S., Belleville, E., Sohn, C., Fasching, P. A., Schneeweiss, A., Brucker, S. Y., & Wallwiener, M. (2017). Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. JMIR Cancer, 3(2), e11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hartkopf, A. D., Graf, J., Simoes, E., Keilmann, L., Sickenberger, N., Gass, P., Wallwiener, D., Matthies, L., Taran, F.-A., Lux, M. P., Wallwiener, S., Belleville, E., Sohn, C., Fasching, P. A., Schneeweiss, A., Brucker, S. Y., & Wallwiener, M. (2017). Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. JMIR Cancer, 3(2), e11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C. F., Abernethy, A. P., Basch, E., Potosky, A. L., Roberts, A. C., Loeffler, D. R., & Reeve, B. B. (2014). Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(4), e215–e222.PubMedCrossRef Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C. F., Abernethy, A. P., Basch, E., Potosky, A. L., Roberts, A. C., Loeffler, D. R., & Reeve, B. B. (2014). Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10(4), e215–e222.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Malhotra, K., Buraimoh, O., Thornton, J., Cullen, N., Singh, D., & Goldberg, A. J. (2016). Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis. British Medical Journal Open, 6(6), e011975. Malhotra, K., Buraimoh, O., Thornton, J., Cullen, N., Singh, D., & Goldberg, A. J. (2016). Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis. British Medical Journal Open, 6(6), e011975.
19.
go back to reference Schwartzberg, L. (2016). Electronic patient-reported outcomes: the time is ripe for integration into patient care and clinical research. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 36, e89–e96.CrossRef Schwartzberg, L. (2016). Electronic patient-reported outcomes: the time is ripe for integration into patient care and clinical research. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 36, e89–e96.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value Health, 11(2), 322–333.PubMedCrossRef Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value Health, 11(2), 322–333.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 559–574.PubMedCrossRef Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 559–574.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cook, C. (2010). Mode of administration bias. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 18(2), 61–63.CrossRef Cook, C. (2010). Mode of administration bias. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 18(2), 61–63.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Grootendorst, P. V., Feeny, D. H., & Furlong, W. (1997). Does it matter whom and how you ask? Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(2), 127–135.PubMedCrossRef Grootendorst, P. V., Feeny, D. H., & Furlong, W. (1997). Does it matter whom and how you ask? Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(2), 127–135.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Khoury, M. J., & Flanders, W. D. (1995). Bias in using family history as a risk factor in case-control studies of disease. Epidemiology, 6(5), 511–519.PubMedCrossRef Khoury, M. J., & Flanders, W. D. (1995). Bias in using family history as a risk factor in case-control studies of disease. Epidemiology, 6(5), 511–519.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Hammarstedt, J. E., Redmond, J. M., Gupta, A., Dunne, K. F., Vemula, S. P., & Domb, B. G. (2017). Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: Telephone results may be positively biased. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 25(1), 50–54.PubMedCrossRef Hammarstedt, J. E., Redmond, J. M., Gupta, A., Dunne, K. F., Vemula, S. P., & Domb, B. G. (2017). Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: Telephone results may be positively biased. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 25(1), 50–54.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hutchings, A., Grosse Frie, K., Neuburger, J., van der Meulen, J., & Black, N. (2013). Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(2), 218–225.PubMedCrossRef Hutchings, A., Grosse Frie, K., Neuburger, J., van der Meulen, J., & Black, N. (2013). Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(2), 218–225.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Manual, P.G.S., (2017) GLOBAL HEALTH - A brief guide to the PROMIS Global Health instruments. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), pp. 1–18. Manual, P.G.S., (2017) GLOBAL HEALTH - A brief guide to the PROMIS Global Health instruments. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), pp. 1–18.
30.
go back to reference Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., & Hays, R. D. (2010). Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., & Hays, R. D. (2010). Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of statistical Software, 48(1), 1–29. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of statistical Software, 48(1), 1–29.
32.
go back to reference Van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(5), 1–27.CrossRef Van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(5), 1–27.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Choi, S.W., L.E. Gibbons, & P.K. Crane. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. 39(8), 30. Choi, S.W., L.E. Gibbons, & P.K. Crane. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. 39(8), 30.
34.
go back to reference Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care, 44(11), S115–S123.PubMedCrossRef Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care, 44(11), S115–S123.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Lapin, B. R., Thompson, N. R., Schuster, A., & Katzan, I. L. (2019). Patient versus proxy response on global health scales: No meaningful DIFference. Quality of Life Research, 28(6), 1585–1594.PubMedCrossRef Lapin, B. R., Thompson, N. R., Schuster, A., & Katzan, I. L. (2019). Patient versus proxy response on global health scales: No meaningful DIFference. Quality of Life Research, 28(6), 1585–1594.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Cramér, H., Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-9), Volume 9. 2016: Princeton university press. Cramér, H., Mathematical Methods of Statistics (PMS-9), Volume 9. 2016: Princeton university press.
38.
go back to reference Mokken, R.J. (2011). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. De Gruyter Mouton. Mokken, R.J. (2011). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. De Gruyter Mouton.
39.
go back to reference Molenaar, I.W. (1990) A weighted Loevinger H-coefficient extending Mokken scaling to multicategory items. Psychologische Instituten der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Molenaar, I.W. (1990) A weighted Loevinger H-coefficient extending Mokken scaling to multicategory items. Psychologische Instituten der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
40.
go back to reference Carlozzi, N. E., Boileau, N. R., Roche, M. W., Ready, R. E., Perlmutter, J. S., Chou, K. L., Barton, S. K., McCormack, M. K., Stout, J. C., Cella, D., Miner, J. A., & Paulsen, J. S. (2020). Responsiveness to change over time and test-retest reliability of the PROMIS and Neuro-QoL mental health measures in persons with Huntington disease (HD). Quality of Life Research, 29(12), 3419–3439.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Carlozzi, N. E., Boileau, N. R., Roche, M. W., Ready, R. E., Perlmutter, J. S., Chou, K. L., Barton, S. K., McCormack, M. K., Stout, J. C., Cella, D., Miner, J. A., & Paulsen, J. S. (2020). Responsiveness to change over time and test-retest reliability of the PROMIS and Neuro-QoL mental health measures in persons with Huntington disease (HD). Quality of Life Research, 29(12), 3419–3439.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods & research, 21(2), 230–258.CrossRef Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods & research, 21(2), 230–258.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Jöreskog, K.G. & D. Sörbom. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International. Jöreskog, K.G. & D. Sörbom. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
43.
go back to reference Lin, O. S., Schembre, D. B., Ayub, K., Gluck, M., McCormick, S. E., Patterson, D. J., Cantone, N., Soon, M. S., & Kozarek, R. A. (2007). Patient satisfaction scores for endoscopic procedures: Impact of a survey-collection method. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 65(6), 775–781.PubMedCrossRef Lin, O. S., Schembre, D. B., Ayub, K., Gluck, M., McCormick, S. E., Patterson, D. J., Cantone, N., Soon, M. S., & Kozarek, R. A. (2007). Patient satisfaction scores for endoscopic procedures: Impact of a survey-collection method. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 65(6), 775–781.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Feveile, H., Olsen, O., & Hogh, A. (2007). A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: Response patterns in a survey. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Feveile, H., Olsen, O., & Hogh, A. (2007). A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: Response patterns in a survey. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Höher, J., Bach, T., Münster, A., Bouillon, B., & Tiling, T. (1997). Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(5), 642–647.PubMedCrossRef Höher, J., Bach, T., Münster, A., Bouillon, B., & Tiling, T. (1997). Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(5), 642–647.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Ludemann, R., Watson, D. I., & Jamieson, G. G. (2003). Influence of follow-up methodology and completeness on apparent clinical outcome of fundoplication. American Journal of Surgery, 186(2), 143–147.PubMedCrossRef Ludemann, R., Watson, D. I., & Jamieson, G. G. (2003). Influence of follow-up methodology and completeness on apparent clinical outcome of fundoplication. American Journal of Surgery, 186(2), 143–147.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Plante, C., Jacques, L., Chevalier, S., & Fournier, M. (2012). Comparability of Internet and telephone data in a survey on the respiratory health of children. Canadian Respiratory Journal, 19(1), 13–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Plante, C., Jacques, L., Chevalier, S., & Fournier, M. (2012). Comparability of Internet and telephone data in a survey on the respiratory health of children. Canadian Respiratory Journal, 19(1), 13–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Powers, J. R., Mishra, G., & Young, A. F. (2005). Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: Use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 149–154.PubMedCrossRef Powers, J. R., Mishra, G., & Young, A. F. (2005). Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: Use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 149–154.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Rhodes, T., Girman, C. J., Jacobsen, S. J., Guess, H. A., Hanson, K. A., Oesterling, J. E., & Lieber, M. M. (1995). Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms? Urology, 46(3), 341–345.PubMedCrossRef Rhodes, T., Girman, C. J., Jacobsen, S. J., Guess, H. A., Hanson, K. A., Oesterling, J. E., & Lieber, M. M. (1995). Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms? Urology, 46(3), 341–345.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Harewood, G. C., Yacavone, R. F., Locke, G. R., 3rd., & Wiersema, M. J. (2001). Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: e-mail versus standard mail versus telephone. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 96(12), 3312–3317.PubMedCrossRef Harewood, G. C., Yacavone, R. F., Locke, G. R., 3rd., & Wiersema, M. J. (2001). Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: e-mail versus standard mail versus telephone. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 96(12), 3312–3317.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Differential item functioning to validate setting of delivery compatibility in PROMIS-global health
Auteurs
Dylan J. Parker
Paul M. Werth
David D. Christensen
David S. Jevsevar
Publicatiedatum
20-01-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03084-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2022

Quality of Life Research 7/2022 Naar de uitgave