Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2769–2776 | Cite as

Development of a crosswalk for pain interference measured by the BPI and PROMIS pain interference short form

  • Robert L. Askew
  • Jiseon Kim
  • Hyewon Chung
  • Karon F. Cook
  • Kurt L. Johnson
  • Dagmar Amtmann
Article

Abstract

Introduction

To help researchers in multiple sclerosis (MS) take advantage of the measurement properties of the PROMIS Pain Interference instrument while maintaining continuity with previous research, we developed and tested a crosswalk table to transform Brief Pain Inventory pain interference scale (BPI-PI) scores to PROMIS-PI short form (PROMIS-PI SF) scores.

Methods

The BPI-PI and the PROMIS-PI SF were administered in two studies that included persons with MS. One sample of 369 participants served as a developmental calibration sample, and a separate sample of 360 served as a validation sample. The crosswalk development included dimensionality assessment, item-level parameter estimation, and assessment of accuracy. BPI-PI and PROMIS-PI T scores were obtained from participants’ item responses, and using the crosswalk table, PROMIS-PI T scores were derived from responses to the BPI-PI items. Differences between observed and crosswalked T scores were compared in both samples.

Results

For BPI-PI summary scores ranging from 0 to 10, corresponding T scores ranged from 38.6 to 81.2. The mean difference between observed and crosswalked T scores was 0.51 (SD = 3.9) in the calibration sample and −1.47 (SD = 4.2) in the validation sample. Approximately 80 % of crosswalked scores in the calibration sample were within four score points of the observed PROMIS-PI SF scores, and 70 % were within four points in the validation sample. In both samples, the largest differences were at lower levels of the pain interference continuum.

Conclusions

Crosswalked pain interference scores adequately approximated observed PROMIS-PI SF scores in both the calibration and validation samples. MS researchers and clinicians interested in adopting the PROMIS instruments can use this table to transform BPI-PI scores to enable comparisons with other studies and to maintain continuity with previous research.

Keywords

Calibration Item-response theory BPI PROMIS Chronic pain Multiple sclerosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The contents of this manuscript were developed under grants from the Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) grant numbers H133B080024 and H133B031129. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the federal government. This work was also funded by the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Grant 5U01AR052171-03, to University of Washington. Information on the “Dynamic Assessment of Patient-Reported Chronic Disease Outcomes” can be found at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/clinicalresearch/index.asp.

References

  1. 1.
    Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ehde, D. M., Gibbons, L. E., Chwastiak, L., Bombardier, C. H., Sullivan, M. D., & Kraft, G. H. (2003). Chronic pain in a large community sample of persons with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 9(6), 605–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Alschuler, K. N., Gibbons, L. E., Rosenberg, D. E., Ehde, D. M., Verrall, A. M., Bamer, A. M., et al. (2012). Body mass index and waist circumference in persons aging with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, post-polio syndrome, and spinal cord injury. Disability and Health Journal, 5(3), 177–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, J., Chung, H., Amtmann, D., Revicki, D. A., & Cook, K. F. (2012). Measurement invariance of the PROMIS pain interference item bank across community and clinical samples. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendoza, T. R., Chen, C., Brugger, A., Hubbard, R., Snabes, M., Palmer, S. N., et al. (2004). Lessons learned from a multiple-dose post-operative analgesic trial. Pain, 109(1–2), 103–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleeland, C. S., Gonin, R., Hatfield, A. K., Edmonson, J. H., Blum, R. H., Stewart, J. A., et al. (1994). Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. The New England journal of Medicine, 330(9), 592–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleeland, C. S., Nakamura, Y., Mendoza, T. R., Edwards, K. R., Douglas, J., & Serlin, R. C. (1996). Dimensions of the impact of cancer pain in a four country sample: New information from multidimensional scaling. Pain, 67(2–3), 267–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Dorans, N. J., Pommerich, M., & Holland, P. W. (2007). Linking and aligning scores and scales. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (2000). Population invariance and the equatability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(4), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noonan, V. K., Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Choi, S. W., Kim, J., & Amtmann, D. (2012). Measuring fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: Creating a crosswalk between the modified fatigue impact scale and the PROMIS fatigue short form. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 21(7), 1123–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thissen, D., Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Irwin, D. E., & DeWalt, D. A. (2011). Using the PedsQL (TM) 3.0 asthma module to obtain scores comparable with those of the PROMIS pediatric asthma impact scale (PAIS). Quality of Life Research, 20(9), 1497–1505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thissen, D., Nelson, L., & Swygert, K. A. (2001). Item response theory applied to combinations of multiple chose and constructed response items—approximation methods for scale scores. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 293–341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yost, K. J., Eton, D. T., Garcia, S. F., & Cella, D. (2011). Minimally important differences were estimated for six patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(5), 507–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., et al. (2003). Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 106(3), 337–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Askew
    • 1
  • Jiseon Kim
    • 1
  • Hyewon Chung
    • 2
  • Karon F. Cook
    • 3
  • Kurt L. Johnson
    • 1
  • Dagmar Amtmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of EducationChungnam National UniversityDaejeonKorea
  3. 3.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations