University of Massachusetts Medical School Faculty Publications

Title

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

UMMS Affiliation

Department of Quantitative Health Sciences

Publication Date

1-1-2014

Document Type

Article

Subjects

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

Disciplines

Clinical Epidemiology | Health Services Research

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.

Rights and Permissions

Citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):108-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016. Link to article on publisher's site

Comments

Co-author Barbara Gandek is a doctoral student in the Clinical and Population Health Research Program in the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (GSBS) at UMass Medical School.

Related Resources

Link to Article in PubMed

Journal/Book/Conference Title

Journal of clinical epidemiology

PubMed ID

24262772