Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2016

Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS^® pediatric measures, self- and proxy report

Auteurs: Brooke E. Magnus, Yang Liu, Jason He, Hally Quinn, David Thissen, Heather E. Gross, Darren A. DeWalt, Bryce B. Reeve

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2016

Abstract

Objective

To test equivalence of scores obtained with the PROMIS^® pediatric Depressive Symptoms, Fatigue, and Mobility measures across two modes of administration: computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration. If mode effects are found, to estimate the magnitude and direction of the mode effects.

Methods

Respondents from an internet survey panel completed the child self-report and parent proxy-report versions of the PROMIS^® pediatric Depressive Symptoms, Fatigue, and Mobility measures using both computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration in a crossed counterbalanced design. Pearson correlations and multivariate analysis of variance were used to examine the effects of mode of administration as well as order and form effects.

Results

Correlations between scores obtained with the two modes of administration were high. Scores were generally comparable across modes of administration, but there were some small significant effects involving mode of administration; significant differences in scores between the two modes ranged from 1.24 to 4.36 points.

Conclusions

Scores for these pediatric PROMIS measures are generally comparable across modes of administration. Studies planning to use multiple modes (e.g., self-administration and interviewer-administration) should exercise good study design principles to minimize possible confounding effects from mixed modes.

vorige artikel Item bank development, calibration and validation for patient-reported outcomes in female urinary incontinence

volgende artikel Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2014). Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: An IRT-based analysis from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 217–227. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0451-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Beebe, T. J., McRae, J. A, Jr., Harrison, P. A., Davern, M. E., & Quinlan, K. B. (2005). Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(4), 421–424.CrossRefPubMed

Hanmer, J., Hays, R. D., & Fryback, D. G. (2007). Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 45(12), 1171–1179. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181354828.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

McHorney, C. A., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (1994). Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Medical Care, 32(6), 551–567.CrossRefPubMed

Kraus, L., & Augustin, R. (2001). Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: Comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction, 96(3), 459–471. doi:10.1080/0965214002005428.CrossRefPubMed

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9619-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Lai, J. S., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Varni, J. W., Dewitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2013). Development and psychometric properties of the PROMIS^® pediatric fatigue item banks. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0357-1.

11.

Dewitt, E. M., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Langer, M., Varni, J. W., et al. (2011). Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: Built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 794–804. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Varni, J. W., Thissen, D., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Gorder, H., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2012). PROMIS^® parent proxy report scales: An item response theory analysis of the parent proxy report item banks. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1223–1240. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0025-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

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

14.

Robinson-Cimpian, J. P. (2014). Inaccurate estimation of disparities due to mischievous responders: Several suggestions to assess conclusions. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 171–185. doi:10.3102/0013189x14534297.CrossRef

15.

Bock, R. D. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

16.

Schwartz, C. E., Andresen, E. M., Nosek, M. A., Krahn, G. L., & RRTC Expert Panel on Health Status Measurement. (2007). Response shift theory: Important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(4), 529–536. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.032.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Thissen, D., & Norton, S. (2013). What might changes in psychometric approaches to statewide testing mean for NAEP? In Examining the content and context of the common core state standards: A first look at implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 253–304).

18.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Maronna, R. A., & Yohai, V. J. (1995). The behavior of the Stahel–Donoho robust multivariate estimator. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), 330–341.CrossRef

Titel: Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS® pediatric measures, self- and proxy report
Auteurs: Brooke E. Magnus
Yang Liu
Jason He
Hally Quinn
David Thissen
Heather E. Gross
Darren A. DeWalt
Bryce B. Reeve
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1221-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2016

Measuring nonspecific factors in treatment: item banks that assess the healthcare experience and attitudes from the patient’s perspective

Quality of life in Iranian patients with bipolar disorder: a psychometric study of the Persian Brief Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD)

Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study

Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores

Interpretation of Renal Quality of Life Profile scores in routine clinical practice: an aid to treatment decision-making

Item bank development, calibration and validation for patient-reported outcomes in female urinary incontinence