Establishing a common metric for self-reported pain: linking BPI Pain Interference and SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale scores to the PROMIS Pain Interference metric
- 680 Downloads
The study purposes were to mathematically link scores of the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference Subscale and the Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (legacy pain interference measures) to the NIH Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) metric and evaluate results.
Linking was accomplished using both equipercentile and item response theory (IRT) methods. Item parameters for legacy items were estimated on the PROMIS-PI metric to allow for pattern scoring. Crosswalk tables also were developed that associated raw scores (summed or average) on legacy measures to PROMIS-PI scores. For each linking strategy, participants’ actual PROMIS-PI scores were compared to those predicted based on their legacy scores. To assess the impact of different sample sizes, we conducted random resampling with replacement across 10,000 replications with sample sizes of n = 25, 50, and 75.
Analyses supported the assumption that all three scales were measuring similar constructs. IRT methods produced marginally better results than equipercentile linking. Accuracy of the links was substantially affected by sample size.
The linking tools (crosswalks and item parameter estimates) developed in this study are robust methods for estimating the PROMIS-PI scores of samples based on legacy measures. We recommend using pattern scoring for users who have the necessary software and score crosswalks for those who do not.
KeywordsPain Pain measurement Patient outcome assessment Psychometric methods/scaling Item response theory Instrument calibration/equivalency among scales
This research was part of the PROsetta Stone® project, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute grant RC4CA157236 (David Cella, PI). For more information on PROsetta Stone, see www.prosettastone.org.
- 1.IASP Task Force on Taxonomy. (1994). Part III: Pain terms—A current list with definitions and notes on usage. In H. Merskey & N. Bogduk (Eds.), Classification of chronic pain (pp. 209–214). Seattle, WA: IASP Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Institute of Medicine. (2012). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education. Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 6.Ramstad, K., Jahnsen, R., Skjeldal, O. H., & Diseth, T. H. (2012). Parent-reported participation in children with cerebral palsy: The contribution of recurrent musculoskeletal pain and child mental health problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 54(9), 829–835.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Psychometric Monograph No. 17). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society. Retrieved from http://www.psychometrika.org/journal/online/MN17.pdf.
- 21.Stubbs, B., Eggermont, L., Patchay, S., & Schofield, P. (2014). Older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain are at increased risk of recurrent falls and the brief pain inventory could help identify those most at risk. Geriatrics & Gerontology International. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12357.
- 23.Cleeland, C. S. (2009). The brief pain inventory user guide. Retrieved 4/16/2015, fromhttp://www.mdanderson.org/education-and-research/departments-programs-and-labs/departments-and-divisions/symptom-research/symptom-assessment-tools/BPI_UserGuide.pdf
- 24.Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A users’ manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.Google Scholar
- 26.Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
- 27.Choi, S. W., Schalet, B., Cook, K. F., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 513–527.Google Scholar
- 28.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 30.West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 32.Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Bollen, K. A., & Long, K. S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 35.McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- 37.Revelle, W. (2013). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (R package version 1.2.8) (computer software). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html
- 38.R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/
- 42.Revelle, W. (2015). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (version 1.5.1). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
- 45.Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. (2011). IRTPRO 2.1 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
- 49.Brennan, R. (2004). Linking with Equivalent Group or Single Group Design (LEGS) (version 2.0). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment (CASMA).Google Scholar
- 50.Albano, T. (2011). Equate: Statistical methods for test score equating (R package version 1.1-4). http://cran.opensourceresources.org/web/packages/equate/equate.pdf
- 52.Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows user’s guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- 54.Dorans, N. J. (2004). Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 227–246.Google Scholar
- 56.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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar