Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Short-form patient-reported outcome measures are popular because they minimize patient burden. We assessed the efficiency of static short forms and computer adaptive testing (CAT) using data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project.
We evaluated the 28-item PROMIS depressive symptoms bank. We used post hoc simulations based on the PROMIS calibration sample to compare several short-form selection strategies and the PROMIS CAT to the total item bank score.
Compared with full-bank scores, all short forms and CAT produced highly correlated scores, but CAT outperformed each static short form in almost all criteria. However, short-form selection strategies performed only marginally worse than CAT. The performance gap observed in static forms was reduced by using a two-stage branching test format.
Using several polytomous items in a calibrated unidimensional bank to measure depressive symptoms yielded a CAT that provided marginally superior efficiency compared to static short forms. The efficiency of a two-stage semi-adaptive testing strategy was so close to CAT that it warrants further consideration and study.
- Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms
Quality of Life Research
Volume 19, Issue 1 , pp 125-136
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Computer adaptive testing
- Item response theory
- Short form
- Two-stage testing
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 710 N. Lake Shore Dr, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
- 2. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- 5. Health Program, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA