Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: self-efficacy for managing daily activities

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometrics of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System self-efficacy for managing daily activities item bank.

Methods

The item pool was field tested on a sample of 1087 participants via internet (n = 250) and in-clinic (n = 837) surveys. All participants reported having at least one chronic health condition. The 35 item pool was investigated for dimensionality (confirmatory factor analyses, CFA and exploratory factor analysis, EFA), item-total correlations, local independence, precision, and differential item functioning (DIF) across gender, race, ethnicity, age groups, data collection modes, and neurological chronic conditions (McFadden Pseudo R 2 less than 10 %).

Results

The item pool met two of the four CFA fit criteria (CFI = 0.952 and SRMR = 0.07). EFA analysis found a dominant first factor (eigenvalue = 24.34) and the ratio of first to second eigenvalue was 12.4. The item pool demonstrated good item-total correlations (0.59–0.85) and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). The item pool maintained its precision (reliability over 0.90) across a wide range of theta (3.70), and there was no significant DIF.

Conclusion

The findings indicated the item pool has sound psychometric properties and the test items are eligible for development of computerized adaptive testing and short forms.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bodenheimer, T., Lorig, K., Holman, H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(19), 2469–2475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Leventhal, H., Weinman, J., Leventhal, E. A., & Phillips, L. A. (2008). Health psychology: The search for pathways between behavior and health. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 477–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones, F., Partridge, C., & Reid, F. (2008). The Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: Measuring individual confidence in functional performance after stroke. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(7b), 244–252. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02333.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gramstad, A., Iversen, E., & Engelsen, B. A. (2001). The impact of affectivity dispositions, self-efficacy and locus of control on psychosocial adjustment in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy Research, 46(1), 53–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwartz, C. E., Coulthard-Morris, L., Zeng, Q., & Retzlaff, P. (1996). Measuring self-efficacy in people with multiple sclerosis: A validation study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(4), 394–398.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckham, J. C., Burker, E. J., Lytle, B. L., Feldman, M. E., & Costakis, M. J. (1997). Self-efficacy and adjustment in cancer patients: A preliminary report. Behavioral Medicine, 23(3), 138–142. doi:10.1080/08964289709596370.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilcox, S., Schoffman, D. E., Dowda, M., & Sharpe, P. A. (2014). Psychometric properties of the 8-item english arthritis self-efficacy scale in a diverse sample. Arthritis, 2014, 385256. doi:10.1155/2014/385256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards, R., Telfair, J., Cecil, H., & Lenoci, J. (2001). Self-efficacy as a predictor of adult adjustment to sickle cell disease: One-year outcomes. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63(5), 850–858.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lorig, K., Chastain, R. L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., & Holman, H. R. (1989). Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 32(1), 37–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lorig, K. R., Sobel, D. S., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D., & Hobbs, M. (2001). Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), 256–262.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (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 Suppl 1), S22–S31. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S12–S21. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (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. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Revicki, D. A., Chen, W. H., Harnam, N., Cook, K. F., Amtmann, D., Callahan, L. F., et al. (2009). Development and psychometric analysis of the PROMIS pain behavior item bank. Pain, 146(1–2), 158–169. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.07.029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. (2013). (22.0 ed.). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

  18. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. I., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Prentice Hall: NY.

  19. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 4(4), 293–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (7.11th ed.). CA: Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Revicki, D. A., Cook, K. F., Amtmann, D., Harnam, N., Chen, W. H., & Keefe, F. J. (2014). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the PROMIS pain quality item bank. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 245–255. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0467-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows (2.1st ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S − χ2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298. doi:10.1177/0146621603027004004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dodd, B., Koch, W., & De Ayala, R. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Crane, P. K., van Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23(2), 241–256. doi:10.1002/sim.1713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 19(4), 595–607. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9619-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., Choi, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10), S20–S27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283. doi:10.1177/1073191111411667.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2009). A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(3), 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Grant 1U01AR057967-01, “Development and Validation of a Self–Efficacy Item Bank,” Lisa Shulman (Principal Investigator) and Craig Velozo, Ann Gruber-Baldini and Sergio Romero (Co-Investigators). The results and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Rm B417, 151-B Rutledge Avenue, Charleston, SC, 29425-9620, USA

    Ickpyo Hong

  2. Division of Occupational Therapy, Medical University of South Carolina, Rm 330, 151-B Rutledge Avenue MSC 962, Charleston, SC, 29425-9620, USA

    Craig A. Velozo

  3. Department of Healthcare Leadership and Management, Medical University of South Carolina, Rm B415, 151-B Rutledge Avenue, Charleston, SC, 29425-9620, USA

    Chih-Ying Li

  4. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Sergio Romero

  5. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center of Innovation on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1601 SW Archer Rd., Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA

    Sergio Romero

  6. Division of Gerontology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Rm 213, Howard Hall, 660 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201-1559, USA

    Ann L. Gruber-Baldini

  7. Department of Neurology, University of Maryland Parkinson Disease and Movement Disorders Center, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Lisa M. Shulman

  8. Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders and The Rosalyn Newman Distinguished Scholar in Parkinson’s Disease, 110 Paca Street, Rm 3-S-127, Baltimore, MD, 21201-1559, USA

    Lisa M. Shulman

Authors
  1. Ickpyo Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig A. Velozo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chih-Ying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergio Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ann L. Gruber-Baldini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lisa M. Shulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig A. Velozo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Ickpyo Hong declares that he has no conflict of interest. Craig A. Velozo declares that he has no conflict of interest. Chih-Ying Li declares that she has no conflict of interest. Sergio Romero declares that he has no conflict of interest. Ann L. Gruber-Baldini declares that she has no conflict of interest. Lisa M. Shulman declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Institutional review boards (IRB) of the Medical University of South Carolina (#Pro00033397), the University of Maryland (#HP-000432550), and the University of Florida (#261-2010).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

Raw scores were converted into a T score metric

Raw score

T score

SE

Raw score

T score

SE

Raw score

T score

SE

35

16.31

3.73

82

35.05

0.87

129

42.63

0.87

36

18.98

2.91

83

35.17

0.91

130

42.75

0.93

37

20.28

2.70

84

35.30

0.97

131

42.89

1.01

38

21.32

2.52

85

35.45

1.06

132

43.06

1.10

39

22.18

2.37

86

35.63

1.14

133

43.25

1.19

40

22.97

2.21

87

35.84

1.22

134

43.48

1.25

41

23.65

2.08

88

36.07

1.26

135

43.72

1.28

42

24.26

1.99

89

36.31

1.27

136

43.97

1.28

43

24.82

1.90

90

36.55

1.24

137

44.21

1.23

44

25.33

1.84

91

36.76

1.17

138

44.43

1.17

45

25.81

1.77

92

36.95

1.08

139

44.63

1.09

46

26.26

1.71

93

37.11

0.98

140

44.80

1.03

47

26.67

1.65

94

37.24

0.89

141

44.95

0.99

48

27.05

1.60

95

37.35

0.82

142

45.10

0.99

49

27.42

1.57

96

37.44

0.78

143

45.25

1.03

50

27.77

1.55

97

37.53

0.78

144

45.42

1.10

51

28.12

1.53

98

37.62

0.81

145

45.62

1.18

52

28.46

1.51

99

37.72

0.87

146

45.84

1.26

53

28.78

1.48

100

37.85

0.95

147

46.09

1.31

54

29.09

1.43

101

38.00

1.05

148

46.36

1.34

55

29.37

1.37

102

38.17

1.14

149

46.64

1.33

56

29.64

1.32

103

38.38

1.22

150

46.90

1.29

57

29.88

1.30

104

38.61

1.26

151

47.16

1.25

58

30.13

1.30

105

38.85

1.26

152

47.39

1.22

59

30.38

1.32

106

39.08

1.23

153

47.62

1.22

60

30.64

1.34

107

39.29

1.16

154

47.85

1.25

61

30.91

1.36

108

39.47

1.07

155

48.10

1.31

62

31.18

1.36

109

39.63

0.97

156

48.37

1.38

63

31.45

1.33

110

39.76

0.89

157

48.68

1.44

64

31.70

1.27

111

39.86

0.82

158

49.01

1.49

65

31.92

1.20

112

39.96

0.78

159

49.36

1.52

66

32.11

1.13

113

40.04

0.78

160

49.72

1.53

67

32.29

1.07

114

40.14

0.81

161

50.08

1.55

68

32.45

1.05

115

40.24

0.88

162

50.46

1.60

69

32.62

1.06

116

40.37

0.97

163

50.85

1.67

70

32.79

1.10

117

40.52

1.06

164

51.29

1.76

71

32.98

1.17

118

40.70

1.15

165

51.77

1.87

72

33.20

1.23

119

40.91

1.22

166

52.31

1.98

73

33.43

1.28

120

41.14

1.26

167

52.91

2.11

74

33.68

1.29

121

41.38

1.27

168

53.56

2.25

75

33.92

1.28

122

41.61

1.23

169

54.31

2.44

76

34.16

1.22

123

41.83

1.16

170

55.19

2.67

77

34.37

1.15

124

42.01

1.07

171

56.38

3.21

78

34.54

1.06

125

42.17

0.98

172

57.28

3.26

79

34.70

0.97

126

42.30

0.91

173

58.68

3.56

80

34.82

0.90

127

42.42

0.86

174

60.39

3.82

81

34.94

0.87

128

42.53

0.85

175

65.11

5.41

  1. The raw scores were converted into T scores with average 50 and standard deviation 10
  2. SE standard error

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, I., Velozo, C.A., Li, CY. et al. Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: self-efficacy for managing daily activities. Qual Life Res 25, 2221–2232 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1270-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1270-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation