Development and Evaluation of the PROMIS® Pediatric Positive Affect Item Bank, Child-Report and Parent-Proxy Editions
- 224 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPositive 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.
- 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
- 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
- Dennis, J. M. (2010). KnowledgePanel®: Processes and procedures contributing to sample representativeness & tests for self-selection bias. http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/KnowledgePanelR-Statistical-Methods-Note.pdf. Accessed June 6 2016.
- 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
- 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
- Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lohr, S. (2009). Sampling: Design and analysis. Ontario: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2013). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar