Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Recent US-based studies have utilised item response theory (IRT) to equate several self-report scales for depression and anxiety using the PROMIS depression and anxiety common metrics. The current study reports on the validity of the US-based equating procedures for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Kessler 6 psychological distress scale (K6) to equate scores in a large online sample of Australian adults.
Data comprised 3175 Australians recruited online. Each participant provided responses to the PROMIS depression and anxiety item banks, the PHQ-9, the GAD-7 and the K6. Two scoring methods were used to convert the scores on the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K6 to the PROMIS depression and anxiety metrics. The converted scores were compared to the PROMIS depression and anxiety scores using intraclass correlations, mean difference, mean of absolute differences and Bland–Altman limits of agreement.
Statistically significant mean differences were identified in five out of eight equated scores, albeit the effect sizes were small (Cohen’s dz ≤ 0.25). The correlations were uniformly high (ICC ≥ 0.86). The mean of absolute differences between observed and equated scores for each metric and across scoring methods ranged between 4.23 and 5.33.
The results demonstrate the validity of generating PROMIS depression and anxiety scores from the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K6 in an independent sample of Australians. The agreement between equated scores provides some assurance that researchers and clinicians can utilise the converted PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K6 scores on the PROMIS metrics without a substantial decrease in accuracy and precision at the group level.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
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. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates. Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S12–S21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411667. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Schalet, B. D., Pilkonis, P. A., Yu, L., Dodds, N., Johnston, K. L., Yount, S., et al. (2016). Clinical validity of PROMIS depression, anxiety, and anger across diverse clinical samples. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.036. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Pilkonis, P. A., Yu, L., Dodds, N. E., Johnston, K. L., Maihoefer, C. C., & Lawrence, S. M. (2014). Validation of the depression item bank from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) in a three-month observational study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 56, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.05.010. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Hussong, A. M., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2013). Integrative data analysis in clinical psychology research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185522. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Curran, P. J., Hussong, A. M., Cai, L., Huang, W., Chassin, L., Sher, K. J., et al. (2008). Pooling data from multiple longitudinal studies: The role of item response theory in integrative data analysis. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-16184.108.40.2065. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: Linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.11.006. CrossRefPubMed
Kaat, A. J., Newcomb, M. E., Ryan, D. T., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Expanding a common metric for depression reporting: Linking two scales to PROMIS® depression. Quality of Life Research, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1450-z.
Batterham, P. J., Sunderland, M., Carragher, N., & Calear, A. L. (2016). Development and community-based validation of eight item banks to assess mental health. Psychiatry Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.011. PubMedCrossRef
Choi, S. W., Podrabsky, T., McKinney, N., Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., & Cella, D. (2015). PROSETTA stone analysis report: A rosetta stone for patient reported outcomes. Vol 1. Chicago.
Cella, D., Schalet, B. D., Kallen, M., Lai, J.-S., Cook, K. F., Rutsohn, J. P., & Choi, S. W. (2016). PROSETTA stone analysis report: A rosetta stone for patient reported outcomes. Vol 2. Chicago.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
- Validity of the PROMIS depression and anxiety common metrics in an online sample of Australian adults
- Springer International Publishing