Building PROMIS item banks: librarians as co-investigators
- 172 Downloads
There is growing interest in the use of item response theory (IRT) for creation of measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). A first step in IRT modeling is development of item banks. Our aim is to describe the value of including librarians and to describe processes used by librarians, in the creation of such banks.
Working collaboratively with PROMIS researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, a team of librarians designed and implemented comprehensive literature searches in a selected set of information resources, for the purpose of identifying existing measures of patient-reported emotional distress.
A step-by-step search protocol developed by librarians produced a set of 525 keywords and controlled vocabulary terms for use in search statements in 3 bibliographic databases. These searches produced 6,169 literature citations, allowing investigators to add 444 measurement scales to their item banks.
Inclusion of librarians on the Pittsburgh PROMIS research team allowed investigators to create large initial item banks, increasing the likelihood that the banks would attain high measurement precision during subsequent psychometric analyses. In addition, a comprehensive literature search protocol was developed that can now serve as a guide for other investigators in the creation of IRT item banks.
KeywordsDatabases as topic Outcome assessment (health care) Librarians Interdisciplinary communication
- 4.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. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Medical Library Association. (2005). Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 93(1), 42–44.Google Scholar
- 11.Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., & Glanville, J. (2008). Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 95–150). England: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 12.Delaney, A., Bagshaw, S. M., Ferland, A., Laupland, K., Manns, B., & Doig, C. (2007). The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews: An independent appraisal. Critical Care Medicine, 35(2), 589–594. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000253394.15628.FD.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., Riphagen, I., et al. (2009). Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(3), 313–333. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bellack, A. S., & Hersen, M. (1998). Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- 20.Knapp, S. D. (2000). The contemporary thesaurus of search terms and synonyms: A guide for natural language computer searching (2nd ed.). Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press.Google Scholar
- 22.Pilkonis, P. A. (2006). Item identification and pooling. Inaugural PROMIS Conference; Gaithersburg, MD.Google Scholar