Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks
- 613 Downloads
Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content.
A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions.
These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content.
This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.
KeywordsContent validity Conceptual framework Domain definition Item response theory
The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap initiative to develop a computerized system measuring patient-reported outcomes in respondents with a wide range of chronic diseases and demographic characteristics. PROMIS was funded by cooperative agreements to a Statistical Coordinating Center (Northwestern University, PI: David Cella, PhD, U01AR52177) and six Primary Research Sites (Duke University, PI: Kevin Weinfurt, PhD, U01AR52186; University of North Carolina, PI: Darren DeWalt, MD, MPH, U01AR52181; University of Pittsburgh, PI: Paul A. Pilkonis, PhD, U01AR52155; Stanford University, PI: James Fries, MD, U01AR52158; Stony Brook University, PI: Arthur Stone, PhD, U01AR52170; and University of Washington, PI: Dagmar Amtmann, PhD, U01AR52171). NIH Science Officers on this project have included Deborah Ader, PhD, Susan Czajkowski, PhD, Lawrence Fine, MD, DrPH, Laura Lee Johnson, PhD, Louis Quatrano, PhD, Bryce Reeve, PhD, William Riley, PhD, Susana Serrate-Sztein, MD, and James Witter, MD, PhD. This manuscript was reviewed by the PROMIS Publications Subcommittee prior to external peer review. See the Web site at www.nihpromis.org for additional information on the PROMIS cooperative group.
- 3.US Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Food and drug administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071975.pdf.
- 4.Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Kline Leidy, N., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluation and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value in Health, 8, 1075–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., & Stone, A. A. (2008). Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research, 17, 1239–1246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., 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(Suppl. 1), S22–S31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensena, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.Google Scholar
- 13.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A. A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B. B., Yount, S., et al. (in press). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.Google Scholar
- 14.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 16.American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
- 17.Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D., & The Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 10(Suppl. 2), S94–S105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Watson, D. (2005). Rethinking the mood and anxiety disorders: A quantitative hierarchical model for DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 522–536.Google Scholar