Quality of Life Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 125–136

Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms

  • Seung W. Choi
  • Steven P. Reise
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
  • Ron D. Hays
  • David Cella

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9560-5

Cite this article as:
Choi, S.W., Reise, S.P., Pilkonis, P.A. et al. Qual Life Res (2010) 19: 125. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9560-5



Short-form patient-reported outcome measures are popular because they minimize patient burden. We assessed the efficiency of static short forms and computer adaptive testing (CAT) using data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project.


We evaluated the 28-item PROMIS depressive symptoms bank. We used post hoc simulations based on the PROMIS calibration sample to compare several short-form selection strategies and the PROMIS CAT to the total item bank score.


Compared with full-bank scores, all short forms and CAT produced highly correlated scores, but CAT outperformed each static short form in almost all criteria. However, short-form selection strategies performed only marginally worse than CAT. The performance gap observed in static forms was reduced by using a two-stage branching test format.


Using several polytomous items in a calibrated unidimensional bank to measure depressive symptoms yielded a CAT that provided marginally superior efficiency compared to static short forms. The efficiency of a two-stage semi-adaptive testing strategy was so close to CAT that it warrants further consideration and study.


Computer adaptive testing PROMIS Item response theory Short form Two-stage testing 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seung W. Choi
    • 1
  • Steven P. Reise
    • 2
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
    • 3
  • Ron D. Hays
    • 4
    • 5
  • David Cella
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Health ProgramRANDSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations