nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

05.04.2016

Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: self-efficacy for managing daily activities

verfasst von: Ickpyo Hong, Craig A. Velozo, Chih-Ying Li, Sergio Romero, Ann L. Gruber-Baldini, Lisa M. Shulman

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometrics of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System self-efficacy for managing daily activities item bank.

Methods

The item pool was field tested on a sample of 1087 participants via internet (n = 250) and in-clinic (n = 837) surveys. All participants reported having at least one chronic health condition. The 35 item pool was investigated for dimensionality (confirmatory factor analyses, CFA and exploratory factor analysis, EFA), item-total correlations, local independence, precision, and differential item functioning (DIF) across gender, race, ethnicity, age groups, data collection modes, and neurological chronic conditions (McFadden Pseudo R ² less than 10 %).

Results

The item pool met two of the four CFA fit criteria (CFI = 0.952 and SRMR = 0.07). EFA analysis found a dominant first factor (eigenvalue = 24.34) and the ratio of first to second eigenvalue was 12.4. The item pool demonstrated good item-total correlations (0.59–0.85) and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). The item pool maintained its precision (reliability over 0.90) across a wide range of theta (3.70), and there was no significant DIF.

Conclusion

The findings indicated the item pool has sound psychometric properties and the test items are eligible for development of computerized adaptive testing and short forms.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

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. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bodenheimer, T., Lorig, K., Holman, H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(19), 2469–2475.CrossRefPubMed

Leventhal, H., Weinman, J., Leventhal, E. A., & Phillips, L. A. (2008). Health psychology: The search for pathways between behavior and health. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 477–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093643.CrossRefPubMed

Jones, F., Partridge, C., & Reid, F. (2008). The Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: Measuring individual confidence in functional performance after stroke. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(7b), 244–252. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02333.x.CrossRefPubMed

Gramstad, A., Iversen, E., & Engelsen, B. A. (2001). The impact of affectivity dispositions, self-efficacy and locus of control on psychosocial adjustment in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy Research, 46(1), 53–61.CrossRefPubMed

Schwartz, C. E., Coulthard-Morris, L., Zeng, Q., & Retzlaff, P. (1996). Measuring self-efficacy in people with multiple sclerosis: A validation study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(4), 394–398.CrossRefPubMed

Beckham, J. C., Burker, E. J., Lytle, B. L., Feldman, M. E., & Costakis, M. J. (1997). Self-efficacy and adjustment in cancer patients: A preliminary report. Behavioral Medicine, 23(3), 138–142. doi:10.1080/08964289709596370.CrossRefPubMed

Wilcox, S., Schoffman, D. E., Dowda, M., & Sharpe, P. A. (2014). Psychometric properties of the 8-item english arthritis self-efficacy scale in a diverse sample. Arthritis, 2014, 385256. doi:10.1155/2014/385256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Edwards, R., Telfair, J., Cecil, H., & Lenoci, J. (2001). Self-efficacy as a predictor of adult adjustment to sickle cell disease: One-year outcomes. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63(5), 850–858.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lorig, K., Chastain, R. L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., & Holman, H. R. (1989). Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 32(1), 37–44.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lorig, K. R., Sobel, D. S., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D., & Hobbs, M. (2001). Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), 256–262.PubMed

12.

Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.CrossRefPubMed

13.

van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.CrossRef

14.

DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S12–S21. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

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. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Revicki, D. A., Chen, W. H., Harnam, N., Cook, K. F., Amtmann, D., Callahan, L. F., et al. (2009). Development and psychometric analysis of the PROMIS pain behavior item bank. Pain, 146(1–2), 158–169. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.07.029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. (2013). (22.0 ed.). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

18.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. I., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Prentice Hall: NY.

19.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRef

20.

McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 4(4), 293–307.CrossRef

21.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (7.11th ed.). CA: Los Angeles.

22.

Revicki, D. A., Cook, K. F., Amtmann, D., Harnam, N., Chen, W. H., & Keefe, F. J. (2014). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the PROMIS pain quality item bank. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 245–255. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0467-9.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows (2.1st ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

24.

Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 50–64.CrossRef

25.

Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S − χ²: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298. doi:10.1177/0146621603027004004.CrossRef

26.

Dodd, B., Koch, W., & De Ayala, R. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143.CrossRef

27.

Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). Lordif: An R Package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Crane, P. K., van Belle, G., & Larson, E. B. (2004). Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Statistics in Medicine, 23(2), 241–256. doi:10.1002/sim.1713.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Lai, J.-S., et al. (2010). An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 19(4), 595–607. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9619-3.CrossRef

30.

Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., Choi, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10), S20–S27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

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. doi:10.1177/1073191111411667.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), 28–42.

33.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2009). A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(3), 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.003.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: self-efficacy for managing daily activities
verfasst von: Ickpyo Hong
Craig A. Velozo
Chih-Ying Li
Sergio Romero
Ann L. Gruber-Baldini
Lisa M. Shulman
Publikationsdatum: 05.04.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1270-1

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2016

The use and impact of quality of life assessment tools in clinical care settings for cancer patients, with a particular emphasis on brain cancer: insights from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations

Long-term health-related quality of life in eating disorders

Phase 1 in the development of a patient-reported measure to quantify perceived inconvenience of radiotherapy: generation of issues

A single question about a respondent’s perceived financial ability to pay monthly bills explains more variance in health utility scores than absolute income and assets questions

Considerations for conducting qualitative research with pediatric patients for the purpose of PRO development

Erratum to: Advantages and psychometric validation of proximal intensive assessments of patient-reported outcomes collected in daily life