Psychometric validation of PROMIS® Anxiety and Depression Item Banks for the Brazilian population
Scientific evidence indicates that depression and anxiety symptoms may be understood as risk factors associated with the incidence and progression of chronic diseases. Considering the lack of mental health assessment tools that meet strict methodological standards, the authors have chosen to validate the psychometric properties of Anxiety and Depression Item Banks - Emotional Distress domain of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) for the Brazilian population.
In this study, 606 adults responded to the self-administered Anxiety and Depression Item Banks, which were calibrated using Factor Analyses (Exploratory and Confirmatory analysis) and adjustment of the Graded Response Model. Transcultural validity was assessed by Differential Item Functioning (DIF).
The two-factor analysis confirmed the unidimensionality of Emotional Distress Items (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05). The residual correlation matrix did not identify item pairs with local dependence. Indicators marked with DIF presented a low impact for gender, age, and language variables. The instrument demonstrated greater reliability in the moderate-severe range, indicating that the error reduction is reflected in the − 1.0 to + 3.0 amplitude.
The psychometric measurements of Anxiety and Depression Item Banks in the Brazilian version were equivalent to those in the original version. Additional research contemplating patients with different levels of emotional distress are necessary to better comprehend the results obtained in this study.
KeywordsPROMIS® Emotional distress PRO IRT Adults
We would like to thank the PROMIS® network for their technical support in the cultural adaptation, particularly the researchers at the Medical Social Sciences Department of Northwestern University, Chicago, USA), David Cella, PhD Helena Correia, FACITtrans Director, Benjamin Arnold (Elmhurst, USA). We thank the Research Support Foundation of the state of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for the financial support (PPM-00303-08) and the Quality of Life research group of the School of Medicine of the Federal University of Uberlândia (FAMED-UFU).
This study was funded by the Research Support Foundation of the state of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) (Grant Number: PPM-00303-08).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, & FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2006). Guide for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,4, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., Cella, D., et al. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment,18(3), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Cella, D. (2015). PROMIS 1 Wave 1. Harvard Dataverse, v1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/0NGAKG.
- 9.Promis Cooperative Group. (2008). Unpublished manual for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (Version 1.1). Retrieved 5 Aug, 2018, from https://www.nihpromis.org.
- 12.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(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 18.Embreston, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 19.Pasquali, L. (2007). Teoria de Resposta ao Item: Teoria, procedimentos e aplicações. Brasília: LabPAM, UNB.Google Scholar
- 24.Promis Cooperative Group. (2015). Minimum requirements for the release of PROMIS instruments after translation and recommendations for further psychometric evaluation. Available translations. Retrieved 5 Aug, 2018, from http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-to-promis/available-translations.
- 25.Castro, N. F. C., Rezende, C. H. A., Mendonça, T. M. S., Silva, C. H. M., & Pinto, R. M. C. (2014). Adaptação Transcultural dos Bancos de Itens de Ansiedade e Depressão do Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) para a língua portuguesa. Cadernos de Saúde Pública,30(4), 879–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2012). The COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam Public Health. Retrieved 5 Aug, 2018, from https://www.cosmin.nl.
- 28.Baglin, J. (2014). Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: A demonstration Using FACTOR. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,19(5), 1–15.Google Scholar
- 31.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Pearson.Google Scholar
- 32.Samejima, F. (1968). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Princenton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
- 34.Thissen, D., Chen, W. H., & Bock, R. D. (2003). MULTILOG (version 7) [computer software]. Lincolnwood: Scientifics Software International.Google Scholar
- 35.Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 37.Ladwig, R. (2012). Detecção de Funcionamento Diferencial do Item através da Regressão Logística e da Teoria de Resposta ao Item: Uma interface gráfica. Monografia [Bacharel em Estatística]: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Retrieved 5 Aug, 2018, from, https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/60382/000862409.pdf?sequence=1.
- 38.Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and liket-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.Google Scholar
- 40.Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2006). Mplus user´s guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
- 43.Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.Google Scholar