Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

05-06-2018

Validity of the PROMIS depression and anxiety common metrics in an online sample of Australian adults

Auteurs: M. Sunderland, P. Batterham, A. Calear, N. Carragher

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2018

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

Statistically significant mean differences were identified in five out of eight equated scores, albeit the effect sizes were small (Cohen’s d_z ≤ 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.

Conclusions

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.

vorige artikel Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis

volgende artikel Evaluation of the internal and external responsiveness of Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

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

Amtmann, D., Kim, J., Chung, H., Bamer, A. M., Askew, R. L., Wu, S., et al. (2014). Comparing CESD-10, PHQ-9, and PROMIS depression instruments in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(2), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Batterham, P. J., Sunderland, M., Carragher, N., & Calear, A. L. (2017). Psychometric properties of 7- and 30-Day Versions of the PROMIS emotional distress Item Banks in an Australian adult sample. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116685809.CrossRefPubMed

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

Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(S1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9155-3.CrossRefPubMed

10.

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

11.

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/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.365.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Choi, S. W., Schalet, B., Cook, K. F., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS Depression. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035768.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

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

14.

Fischer, H. F., & Rose, M. (2016). www.common-metrics.org: a web application to estimate scores from different patient-reported outcome measures on a common scale. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 142. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0241-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

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.

16.

Kim, J., Chung, H., Askew, R. L., Park, R., Jones, S. M. W., Cook, K. F., et al. (2017). Translating CESD-20 and PHQ-9 Scores to PROMIS Depression. Assessment, 24(3), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115607042.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Browne, M. A., Andrews, G., & Whiteford, H. (2009). 2007 National survey of mental health and Wellbeing: Methods and key findings. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(7), 594–605.CrossRefPubMed

18.

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

19.

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. T., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.CrossRefPubMed

22.

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.

23.

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.

24.

Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6_5.CrossRef

25.

Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06.CrossRef

26.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

30.

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

31.

Tourangeau, R., Yan, T., & Ting, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Validity of the PROMIS depression and anxiety common metrics in an online sample of Australian adults
Auteurs: M. Sunderland
P. Batterham
A. Calear
N. Carragher
Publicatiedatum: 05-06-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1905-5

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 9/2018

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of eight pediatric PROMIS® item banks into Spanish and German

A tale of two countries: comparing disability weights for gambling problems in New Zealand and Australia

SF-6D population norms for the Hong Kong Chinese general population

Diabetes symptoms predictors of health-related quality of life in adolescents and young adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

Cross-national health comparisons using the Rasch model: findings from the 2012 US Health and Retirement Study and the 2012 Mexican Health and Aging Study

The impact of axial spondyloarthritis on quality of life (QoL): a comparison with the impact of moderate to end-stage chronic kidney disease on QoL