Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. / Bjorner, Jakob B; Rose, Matthias; Gandek, Barbara; Stone, Arthur A; Junghaenel, Doerte U; Ware, John E.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 67, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 108-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Bjorner, JB, Rose, M, Gandek, B, Stone, AA, Junghaenel, DU & Ware, JE 2014, 'Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 108-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016

APA

Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016

Vancouver

Bjorner JB, Rose M, Gandek B, Stone AA, Junghaenel DU, Ware JE. Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014 Jan;67(1):108-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016

Author

Bjorner, Jakob B ; Rose, Matthias ; Gandek, Barbara ; Stone, Arthur A ; Junghaenel, Doerte U ; Ware, John E. / Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014 ; Vol. 67, No. 1. pp. 108-13.

Bibtex

@article{550a8bc4c6354e97a02777c316457ad7,
title = "Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity.RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR.CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.",
keywords = "Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Over Studies, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Patient Preference, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult",
author = "Bjorner, {Jakob B} and Matthias Rose and Barbara Gandek and Stone, {Arthur A} and Junghaenel, {Doerte U} and Ware, {John E}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "108--13",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity

AU - Bjorner, Jakob B

AU - Rose, Matthias

AU - Gandek, Barbara

AU - Stone, Arthur A

AU - Junghaenel, Doerte U

AU - Ware, John E

N1 - Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity.RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR.CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity.RESULTS: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR.CONCLUSION: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Cross-Over Studies

KW - Data Collection

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

KW - Patient Preference

KW - Psychometrics

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24262772

VL - 67

SP - 108

EP - 113

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 138213518