Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 699–718 | Cite as

Development and Evaluation of the PROMIS® Pediatric Positive Affect Item Bank, Child-Report and Parent-Proxy Editions

  • Christopher B. ForrestEmail author
  • Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
  • Janine Devine
  • Brandon D. Becker
  • Rachel E. Teneralli
  • JeanHee Moon
  • Adam  C. Carle
  • Carole A. Tucker
  • Katherine B. Bevans
Research Paper


The purpose of this study is to describe the psychometric evaluation and item response theory (IRT) calibration of the PROMIS Pediatric Positive Affect item bank, child-report and parent-proxy editions. The initial item pool comprising 53 items, previously developed using qualitative methods, was administered to 1874 children 8–17 years old and 909 parents of children 5–17 years old. Analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability, factor analysis, differential item functioning, and construct validity. A total of 14 items were deleted, because of poor psychometric performance, and an 8-item short form constructed from the remaining 39 items was administered to a national sample of 1004 children 8–17 years old, and 1306 parents of children 5–17 years old. The combined sample was used in IRT calibration analyses. The final item bank appeared unidimensional, the items appeared locally independent, and the items were free from differential item functioning. The scales showed excellent reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Positive affect decreased with children’s age and was lower for those with a special health care need. After IRT calibration, we found that 4 and 8 item short forms had a high degree of precision (reliability) across a wide range of the latent trait (>4 SD units). The PROMIS Pediatric Positive Affect item bank and its short forms provide an efficient, precise, and valid assessment of positive affect in children and youth.


Positive affect Experienced well-being Subjective well-being PROMIS Child Item response theory 



The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an NIH Roadmap initiative to develop a computerized system measuring PROs in respondents with a wide range of chronic diseases and demographic characteristics. PROMIS II was funded by cooperative agreements with a Statistical Center (Northwestern University, PI: David Cella, PhD, 1U54AR057951), a Technology Center (Northwestern University, PI: Richard C. Gershon, PhD, 1U54AR057943), a Network Center (American Institutes for Research, PI: Susan (San) D. Keller, PhD, 1U54AR057926) and thirteen Primary Research Sites which may include more than one institution (State University of New York, Stony Brook, PIs: Joan E. Broderick, PhD and Arthur A. Stone, PhD, 1U01AR057948; University of Washington, Seattle, PIs: Heidi M. Crane, MD, MPH, Paul K. Crane, MD, MPH, and Donald L. Patrick, PhD, 1U01AR057954; University of Washington, Seattle, PIs: Dagmar Amtmann, PhD and Karon Cook, PhD, 1U01AR052171; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, PI: Darren A. DeWalt, MD, MPH, 2U01AR052181; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, PI: Christopher B. Forrest, MD, PhD, 1U01AR057956; Stanford University, PI: James F. Fries, MD, 2U01AR052158; Boston University, PIs: Stephen M. Haley, PhD and David Scott Tulsky, PhD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 1U01AR057929; University of California, Los Angeles, PIs: Dinesh Khanna, MD and Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, 1U01AR057936; University of Pittsburgh, PI: Paul A. Pilkonis, PhD, 2U01AR052155; Georgetown University, PIs: Carol. M. Moinpour, PhD (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle) and Arnold L. Potosky, PhD, U01AR057971; Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, PI: Esi M. Morgan DeWitt, MD, MSCE, 1U01AR057940; University of Maryland, Baltimore, PI: Lisa M. Shulman, MD, 1U01AR057967; and Duke University, PI: Kevin P. Weinfurt, PhD, 2U01AR052186). NIH Science Officers on this project have included Deborah Ader, PhD, Vanessa Ameen, MD, Susan Czajkowski, PhD, Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, Lawrence Fine, MD, DrPH, Lawrence Fox, MD, PhD, Lynne Haverkos, MD, MPH, Thomas Hilton, PhD, Laura Lee Johnson, PhD, Michael Kozak, PhD, Peter Lyster, PhD, Donald Mattison, MD, Claudia Moy, PhD, Louis Quatrano, PhD, Bryce Reeve, PhD, William Riley, PhD, Ashley Wilder Smith, PhD, MPH, Susana Serrate-Sztein,MD, Ellen Werner, PhD and James Witter, MD, PhD.


  1. Bethell, C. D., Read, D., Neff, J., Blumberg, S. J., Stein, R. E. K., Sharp, V., et al. (2002a). Comparison of the children with special health care needs screener to the questionnaire for identifying children with chronic conditions–revised. Academic Pediatrics, 2(1), 49–57.Google Scholar
  2. Bethell, C. D., Read, D., Stein, R. E. K., Blumberg, S. J., Wells, N., & Newacheck, P. W. (2002b). Identifying children with special health care needs: Development and evaluation of a short screening instrument. Academic Pediatrics, 2(1), 38–48.Google Scholar
  3. Bevans, K. B., Gardner, W., Pajer, K., Riley, A. W., & Forrest, C. B. (2013). Qualitative development of the PROMIS® pediatric stress response item banks. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, S. W. (2009). Firestar: Computerized adaptive testing simulation program for polytomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(8), 644–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Leeka, J. (1989). Diurnal variation in the positive affects. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig, B. M., Hays, R. D., Pickard, A. S., Cella, D., Revicki, D. A., & Reeve, B. B. (2013). Comparison of US panel vendors for online surveys. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Narasimhalu, K., Lai, J. S., & Cella, D. (2007). Rapid detection of differential item functioning in assessments of health-related quality of life: The functional assessment of cancer therapy. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennis, J. M. (2010). KnowledgePanel®: Processes and procedures contributing to sample representativeness & tests for self-selection bias. Accessed June 6 2016.
  14. DiSogra, C., Dennis, J. M., & Fahimi, M. (2010). On the quality of ancillary data available for address-based sampling. In: Proceedings of the American statistical association, section on survey research methods (pp. 4174–4183).Google Scholar
  15. Ebesutani, C., Regan, J., Smith, A., Reise, S., Higa-McMillan, C., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012). The 10-item positive and negative affect schedule for children, child and parent shortened versions: Application of item response theory for more efficient assessment. Journal of Psychopathological and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2005). Neural systems of positive affect: Relevance to understanding child and adolescent depression? Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 827–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forrest, C. B., Bevans, K. B., Tucker, C., Riley, A. W., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gardner, W., et al. (2012). Commentary: The patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS®) for children and youth—application to pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37(6), 614–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, B. F., Bock, D., Humphres, R. L., & Linn, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(4), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hays, R. D., Liu, H., & Kapteyn, A. (2015). Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys. Behavior Research, 47(3), 685–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, 19(4), 595–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2012). PROMIS Pediatric Anger Scale: An item response theory analysis. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacques, H. A. K., & Mash, E. J. (2004). A test of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression in elementary and high school boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Emotional displays associated with preschoolers’ prosocial behavior. Child Development, 58, 992–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lohr, S. (2009). Sampling: Design and analysis. Ontario: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
  29. Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2013). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Devine, J., Bevans, K., Riley, A. W., Moon, J., Salsman, J. M., et al. (2014). Subjective well-being measures for children were developed within the PROMIS project: Presentation of first results. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Duer, W., et al. (2005). KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 5(3), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Power, M., et al. (2008). The KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Value Health, 11(4), 645–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference Scale: An item response theory analysis of the pediatric pain item bank. The Journal of Pain, 11(11), 1109–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher B. Forrest
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
    • 2
  • Janine Devine
    • 2
  • Brandon D. Becker
    • 1
  • Rachel E. Teneralli
    • 1
  • JeanHee Moon
    • 1
  • Adam  C. Carle
    • 3
  • Carole A. Tucker
    • 4
  • Katherine B. Bevans
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and PsychosomaticsUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physical Therapy, College of Public HealthTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of Rehabilitation SciencesCollege of Public Health, Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations