The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency

280Citations
Citations of this article
203Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective To document the development and psychometric evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) item bank and static instruments. Study Design and Setting The items were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. A total of 16,065 adults answered item subsets (n > 2,200/item) on the Internet, with oversampling of the chronically ill. Classical test and item response theory methods were used to evaluate 149 PROMIS PF items plus 10 Short Form-36 and 20 Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index items. A graded response model was used to estimate item parameters, which were normed to a mean of 50 (standard deviation [SD] = 10) in a US general population sample. Results The final bank consists of 124 PROMIS items covering upper, central, and lower extremity functions and instrumental activities of daily living. In simulations, a 10-item computerized adaptive test (CAT) eliminated floor and decreased ceiling effects, achieving higher measurement precision than any comparable length static tool across four SDs of the measurement range. Improved psychometric properties were transferred to the CAT's superior ability to identify differences between age and disease groups. Conclusion The item bank provides a common metric and can improve the measurement of PF by facilitating the standardization of patient-reported outcome measures and implementation of CATs for more efficient PF assessments over a larger range. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2014). The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(5), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free