Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2014

Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: an IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative

Auteurs: Jakob B. Bjorner, Matthias Rose, Barbara Gandek, Arthur A. Stone, Doerte U. Junghaenel, John E. Ware Jr.

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To test the impact of method of administration (MOA) on the measurement characteristics of items developed in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).

Methods

Two non-overlapping parallel 8-item forms from each of three PROMIS domains (physical function, fatigue, and depression) were completed by 923 adults (age 18–89) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized cross-over design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) on the Internet, and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Structural invariance, equivalence of item responses, and measurement precision were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory methods.

Results

Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported equivalence of factor structure across MOA. Analyses by item response theory found no differences in item location parameters and strongly supported the equivalence of scores across MOA.

Conclusions

We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels in IVR, PQ, or PDA administration as compared to PC. Availability of large item response theory-calibrated PROMIS item banks allowed for innovations in study design and analysis.
vorige artikel Assessing psychological well-being: self-report instruments for the NIH Toolbox
volgende artikel Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value Health, 11(2), 322–333.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Raat, H., Mangunkusumo, R. T., Landgraf, J. M., et al. (2007). Feasibility, reliability, and validity of adolescent health status measurement by the Child Health Questionnaire Child Form (CHQ-CF): Internet administration compared with the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 675–685.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
Yu, S. C. (2007). Comparison of Internet-based and paper-based questionnaires in Taiwan using multisample invariance approach. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 501–507.CrossRef
4.
Duncan, P., Reker, D., Kwon, S., et al. (2005). Measuring stroke impact with the Stroke Impact Scale: Telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Medical Care, 43(5), 507–515.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hepner, K. A., Brown, J. A., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(4), 377–389.PubMedCrossRef
6.
de Vries, H., Elliott, M. N., Hepner, K. A., et al. (2005). Equivalence of mail and telephone responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Services Research, 40(6 Pt 2), 2120–2139.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Powers, J. R., Mishra, G., & Young, A. F. (2005). Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: Use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 149–154.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Beebe, T. J., McRae, J. A., Harrison, P. A., et al. (2005). Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(4), 421–424.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kraus, L., & Augustin, R. (2001). Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: Comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction, 96(3), 459–471.PubMedCrossRef
10.
McHorney, C. A., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (1994). Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Medical Care, 32(6), 551–567.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hanmer, J., Hays, R. D., & Fryback, D. G. (2007). Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 45(12), 1171–1179.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hays, R. D., Kim, S., Spritzer, K. L., et al. (2009). Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores. Value Health, 12(6), 1035–1039.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
Agel, J., Rockwood, T., Mundt, J. C., et al. (2001). Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics, 24(12), 1155–1157.PubMed
14.
Dunn, J. A., Arakawa, R., Greist, J. H., & Clayton, A. H. (2007). Assessing the onset of antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction using interactive voice response technology. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(4), 525–532.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Rush, A. J., Bernstein, I. H., Trivedi, M. H., et al. (2006). An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the hamilton rating scale for depression: A sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report. Biological Psychiatry, 59(6), 493–501.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
16.
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Broderick, J. E., Schwartz, J. E., Vikingstad, G., et al. (2008). The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain, 139(1), 146–157.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
18.
Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2010). Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: Accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods. Quality of Life Research, 19(8), 1163–1170.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
Schneider, S., Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., & Broderick, J. E. (2011). Peak and end effects in patients’ daily recall of pain and fatigue: A within-subjects analysis. J Pain, 12(2), 228–235.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
20.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Kosinski, M., Bayliss, M. S., et al. (1995). Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: Summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care, 33(4 Suppl), AS264–AS279.PubMed
21.
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
22.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey. Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health institute, New England Medical Center.
23.
Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). An NCME Instructional Module on the comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38–47.CrossRef
24.
van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.CrossRef
25.
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., 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.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kolen, M. L., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.CrossRef
27.
Chew, L. D., Bradley, K. A., & Boyko, E. J. (2004). Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Family Medicine, 36, 588–594.PubMed
28.
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
29.
Hochberg, Y. (1988). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 75, 800–803.CrossRef
30.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health, 12(4), 419–429.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., et al. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1–18.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: an IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative
Auteurs
Jakob B. Bjorner
Matthias Rose
Barbara Gandek
Arthur A. Stone
Doerte U. Junghaenel
John E. Ware Jr.
Publicatiedatum
01-02-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0451-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2014

Body mass index and health-related quality of life in apparently healthy individuals

Psychometric analysis of the Swedish translation of the WHO well-being index

  • Brief Communication

Significance, truth and proof of p values: reminders about common misconceptions regarding null hypothesis significance testing

  • Commentary

A conceptual model of health-related quality of life in sarcoidosis

Necessary and sufficient causes of participation post-stroke: practical and philosophical perspectives

Poor self-rated health associated with an increased risk of subsequent development of lung cancer