Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 9/2010

01.11.2010

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks

verfasst von: William T. Riley, Nan Rothrock, Bonnie Bruce, Christopher Christodolou, Karon Cook, Elizabeth A. Hahn, David Cella

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content.

Methods

A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions.

Results

These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content.

Conclusions

This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.
Literatur
1.
Lohr, K., & For the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.CrossRef
2.
Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscomb, J., Teschendorf, B., & The Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value in Health, 10(Suppl. 2), S66–S75.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Kline Leidy, N., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluation and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value in Health, 8, 1075–1083.CrossRef
5.
Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1263–1278.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Cella, D. (2005). The promise of PROMIS: The new sciences behind patient-reported outcomes. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23, S53–S57.PubMed
7.
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 during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(Suppl. 1), S3–S11.CrossRefPubMed
8.
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(Suppl. 1), S12–S21.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Castel, L. D., Williams, K. A., Bosworth, H. B., Eisen, S. V., Hahn, E. A., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2008). Content validity in the PROMIS social health domain: a qualitative analysis of focus group data. Quality of Life Research, 17, 737–749.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., & Stone, A. A. (2008). Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research, 17, 1239–1246.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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(Suppl. 1), S22–S31.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensena, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.
13.
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A. A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B. B., Yount, S., et al. (in press). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
14.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880.CrossRefPubMed
16.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
17.
Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D., & The Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 10(Suppl. 2), S94–S105.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Watson, D. (2005). Rethinking the mood and anxiety disorders: A quantitative hierarchical model for DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 522–536.
Metadaten
Titel
Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks
verfasst von
William T. Riley
Nan Rothrock
Bonnie Bruce
Christopher Christodolou
Karon Cook
Elizabeth A. Hahn
David Cella
Publikationsdatum
01.11.2010
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2010

Quality of Life Research 9/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Commentary

In reply to: association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer

OriginalPaper

Quality of life for head and neck cancer patients treated by combined modality therapy: the therapeutic benefit of technological advances in radiotherapy

BriefCommunication

Validity and reliability of the Bengali version of the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire

OriginalPaper

A novel approach to estimate the minimally important difference for the fatigue impact scale in multiple sclerosis patients

OriginalPaper

Impact of socioeconomic and clinical factors on child oral health-related quality of life (COHRQoL)

OriginalPaper

Confirmatory factor analysis of the validity of the SF-12 for persons with and without a history of stroke