Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2010

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks

Auteurs: William T. Riley, Nan Rothrock, Bonnie Bruce, Christopher Christodolou, Karon Cook, Elizabeth A. Hahn, David Cella

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2010

Abstract

Purpose

Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content.

Methods

A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions.

Results

These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content.

Conclusions

This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.

vorige artikel Physical activity in different domains and health-related quality of life: a population-based study

volgende artikel Confirmatory factor analysis of the validity of the SF-12 for persons with and without a history of stroke

Lohr, K., & For the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.CrossRef

Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscomb, J., Teschendorf, B., & The Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value in Health, 10(Suppl. 2), S66–S75.CrossRefPubMed

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Food and drug administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071975.pdf.

Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Kline Leidy, N., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluation and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value in Health, 8, 1075–1083.CrossRef

Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1263–1278.CrossRefPubMed

Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Cella, D. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: The new sciences behind patient-reported outcomes. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23, S53–S57.PubMed

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 during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(Suppl. 1), S3–S11.CrossRefPubMed

DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(Suppl. 1), S12–S21.CrossRefPubMed

Castel, L. D., Williams, K. A., Bosworth, H. B., Eisen, S. V., Hahn, E. A., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2008). Content validity in the PROMIS social health domain: a qualitative analysis of focus group data. Quality of Life Research, 17, 737–749.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., & Stone, A. A. (2008). Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research, 17, 1239–1246.CrossRefPubMed

11.

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(Suppl. 1), S22–S31.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensena, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.

13.

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A. A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B. B., Yount, S., et al. (in press). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

14.

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

15.

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, 873–880.CrossRefPubMed

16.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

17.

Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D., & The Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 10(Suppl. 2), S94–S105.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Watson, D. (2005). Rethinking the mood and anxiety disorders: A quantitative hierarchical model for DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 522–536.

Titel: Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks
Auteurs: William T. Riley
Nan Rothrock
Bonnie Bruce
Christopher Christodolou
Karon Cook
Elizabeth A. Hahn
David Cella
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2010
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2010

Mental health and quality of life survey among child survivors of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

Quality of life for head and neck cancer patients treated by combined modality therapy: the therapeutic benefit of technological advances in radiotherapy

Health-related quality of life in Chinese patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Application of the health assessment questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases

Confirmatory factor analysis of the validity of the SF-12 for persons with and without a history of stroke

Validity and reliability of the Bengali version of the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire