Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Development and Evaluation of the PROMIS® Pediatric Positive Affect Item Bank, Child-Report and Parent-Proxy Editions

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe the psychometric evaluation and item response theory (IRT) calibration of the PROMIS Pediatric Positive Affect item bank, child-report and parent-proxy editions. The initial item pool comprising 53 items, previously developed using qualitative methods, was administered to 1874 children 8–17 years old and 909 parents of children 5–17 years old. Analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability, factor analysis, differential item functioning, and construct validity. A total of 14 items were deleted, because of poor psychometric performance, and an 8-item short form constructed from the remaining 39 items was administered to a national sample of 1004 children 8–17 years old, and 1306 parents of children 5–17 years old. The combined sample was used in IRT calibration analyses. The final item bank appeared unidimensional, the items appeared locally independent, and the items were free from differential item functioning. The scales showed excellent reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Positive affect decreased with children’s age and was lower for those with a special health care need. After IRT calibration, we found that 4 and 8 item short forms had a high degree of precision (reliability) across a wide range of the latent trait (>4 SD units). The PROMIS Pediatric Positive Affect item bank and its short forms provide an efficient, precise, and valid assessment of positive affect in children and youth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bethell, C. D., Read, D., Neff, J., Blumberg, S. J., Stein, R. E. K., Sharp, V., et al. (2002a). Comparison of the children with special health care needs screener to the questionnaire for identifying children with chronic conditions–revised. Academic Pediatrics, 2(1), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethell, C. D., Read, D., Stein, R. E. K., Blumberg, S. J., Wells, N., & Newacheck, P. W. (2002b). Identifying children with special health care needs: Development and evaluation of a short screening instrument. Academic Pediatrics, 2(1), 38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevans, K. B., Gardner, W., Pajer, K., Riley, A. W., & Forrest, C. B. (2013). Qualitative development of the PROMIS® pediatric stress response item banks. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 284–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. W. (2009). Firestar: Computerized adaptive testing simulation program for polytomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(8), 644–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Leeka, J. (1989). Diurnal variation in the positive affects. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 205–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, B. M., Hays, R. D., Pickard, A. S., Cella, D., Revicki, D. A., & Reeve, B. B. (2013). Comparison of US panel vendors for online surveys. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Narasimhalu, K., Lai, J. S., & Cella, D. (2007). Rapid detection of differential item functioning in assessments of health-related quality of life: The functional assessment of cancer therapy. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, J. M. (2010). KnowledgePanel®: Processes and procedures contributing to sample representativeness & tests for self-selection bias. http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/KnowledgePanelR-Statistical-Methods-Note.pdf. Accessed June 6 2016.

  • DiSogra, C., Dennis, J. M., & Fahimi, M. (2010). On the quality of ancillary data available for address-based sampling. In: Proceedings of the American statistical association, section on survey research methods (pp. 4174–4183).

  • Ebesutani, C., Regan, J., Smith, A., Reise, S., Higa-McMillan, C., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012). The 10-item positive and negative affect schedule for children, child and parent shortened versions: Application of item response theory for more efficient assessment. Journal of Psychopathological and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2005). Neural systems of positive affect: Relevance to understanding child and adolescent depression? Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 827–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, C. B., Bevans, K. B., Tucker, C., Riley, A. W., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gardner, W., et al. (2012). Commentary: The patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS®) for children and youth—application to pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37(6), 614–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. F., Bock, D., Humphres, R. L., & Linn, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(4), 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, R. D., Liu, H., & Kapteyn, A. (2015). Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys. Behavior Research, 47(3), 685–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 595–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2012). PROMIS Pediatric Anger Scale: An item response theory analysis. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, H. A. K., & Mash, E. J. (2004). A test of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression in elementary and high school boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Emotional displays associated with preschoolers’ prosocial behavior. Child Development, 58, 992–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr, S. (2009). Sampling: Design and analysis. Ontario: Nelson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2013). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravens-Sieberer, U., Devine, J., Bevans, K., Riley, A. W., Moon, J., Salsman, J. M., et al. (2014). Subjective well-being measures for children were developed within the PROMIS project: Presentation of first results. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Duer, W., et al. (2005). KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 5(3), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Power, M., et al. (2008). The KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Value Health, 11(4), 645–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference Scale: An item response theory analysis of the pediatric pain item bank. The Journal of Pain, 11(11), 1109–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an NIH Roadmap initiative to develop a computerized system measuring PROs in respondents with a wide range of chronic diseases and demographic characteristics. PROMIS II was funded by cooperative agreements with a Statistical Center (Northwestern University, PI: David Cella, PhD, 1U54AR057951), a Technology Center (Northwestern University, PI: Richard C. Gershon, PhD, 1U54AR057943), a Network Center (American Institutes for Research, PI: Susan (San) D. Keller, PhD, 1U54AR057926) and thirteen Primary Research Sites which may include more than one institution (State University of New York, Stony Brook, PIs: Joan E. Broderick, PhD and Arthur A. Stone, PhD, 1U01AR057948; University of Washington, Seattle, PIs: Heidi M. Crane, MD, MPH, Paul K. Crane, MD, MPH, and Donald L. Patrick, PhD, 1U01AR057954; University of Washington, Seattle, PIs: Dagmar Amtmann, PhD and Karon Cook, PhD, 1U01AR052171; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, PI: Darren A. DeWalt, MD, MPH, 2U01AR052181; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, PI: Christopher B. Forrest, MD, PhD, 1U01AR057956; Stanford University, PI: James F. Fries, MD, 2U01AR052158; Boston University, PIs: Stephen M. Haley, PhD and David Scott Tulsky, PhD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 1U01AR057929; University of California, Los Angeles, PIs: Dinesh Khanna, MD and Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, 1U01AR057936; University of Pittsburgh, PI: Paul A. Pilkonis, PhD, 2U01AR052155; Georgetown University, PIs: Carol. M. Moinpour, PhD (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle) and Arnold L. Potosky, PhD, U01AR057971; Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, PI: Esi M. Morgan DeWitt, MD, MSCE, 1U01AR057940; University of Maryland, Baltimore, PI: Lisa M. Shulman, MD, 1U01AR057967; and Duke University, PI: Kevin P. Weinfurt, PhD, 2U01AR052186). NIH Science Officers on this project have included Deborah Ader, PhD, Vanessa Ameen, MD, Susan Czajkowski, PhD, Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, Lawrence Fine, MD, DrPH, Lawrence Fox, MD, PhD, Lynne Haverkos, MD, MPH, Thomas Hilton, PhD, Laura Lee Johnson, PhD, Michael Kozak, PhD, Peter Lyster, PhD, Donald Mattison, MD, Claudia Moy, PhD, Louis Quatrano, PhD, Bryce Reeve, PhD, William Riley, PhD, Ashley Wilder Smith, PhD, MPH, Susana Serrate-Sztein,MD, Ellen Werner, PhD and James Witter, MD, PhD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher B. Forrest.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5, 6, and 7; Fig. 2.

Table 5 PROMIS Pediatric Positive Affect, Parent-Proxy Edition, item-level descriptive statistics, reliability, and factor loadings; data are from Study 1
Table 6 Item Response Theory Item Parameters for the 39 PROMIS Pediatric Positive Affect Item Bank, Parent-Proxy Edition, and Short Form Item Assignment
Table 7 Scale-Level descriptive statistics, reliability, and concurrent validity
Fig. 2
figure 2

Test Information Functions for the Positive Affect, Proxy-Report Edition, 8-item and 4-item Short Forms

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forrest, C.B., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Devine, J. et al. Development and Evaluation of the PROMIS® Pediatric Positive Affect Item Bank, Child-Report and Parent-Proxy Editions. J Happiness Stud 19, 699–718 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9843-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9843-9

Keywords

Navigation