Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet Panel

Overview

Journal J Clin Epidemiol

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Public Health

Date 2010 Aug 7

PMID 20688473

Citations 241

Authors

Honghu Liu

David Cella

Richard Gershon

Jie Shen

Leo S Morales

William Riley

Ron D Hays

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), which collected data from an Internet polling panel, and to compare PROMIS with national norms.

Study Design And Setting: We compared demographics and self-rated health of the PROMIS general Internet sample (N=11,796) and one of its subsamples (n=2,196) selected to approximate the joint distribution of demographics from the 2000 U.S. Census, with three national surveys and U.S. Census data. The comparisons were conducted using equivalence testing with weights created for PROMIS by raking.

Results: The weighted PROMIS population and subsample had similar demographics compared with the 2000 U.S. Census, except that the subsample had a higher percentage of people with higher education than high school. Equivalence testing shows similarity between PROMIS general population and national norms with regard to body mass index, EQ-5D health index (EuroQol group defined descriptive system of health-related quality of life states consisting of five dimensions including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), and self-rating of general health.

Conclusion: Self-rated health of the PROMIS general population is similar to that of existing samples from the general U.S. population. The weighted PROMIS general population is more comparable to national norms than the unweighted population with regard to subject characteristics. The findings suggest that the representativeness of the Internet data is comparable to those from probability-based general population samples.

Citing Articles

The Impact of Job Demands, Job Resources, and Organisational Justice on Global Health and Turnover Intentions in Animal Care Workers.

Lezon R, Rohlf V, Rayment D, Howell T Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(3).

PMID: 39943190 PMC: 11816187. DOI: 10.3390/ani15030420.

"From Drowning to Treading Water": Adolescents and Young Adults Living with Incurable and Indolent Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma for More than Two Years.

DAlessandro P, Homanick C, Cooper B, Ferguson K, Rutan H, Pressey J Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(3).

PMID: 39941809 PMC: 11816224. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17030442.

Impact of Nursing Interventions via Telephone and Email on the Quality of Life of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Preliminary Results of a Comparative Observational Study.

Mercuri C, Giordano V, Bosco V, Serra N, Spagnuolo R, Nocerino R Healthcare (Basel). 2025; 12(24.

PMID: 39765967 PMC: 11675699. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12242538.

Risk messaging style and its effect on public preparedness for earthquakes: longitudinal intervention-based study.

Levy L, Bodas M J Public Health Policy. 2024; 46(1):87-109.

PMID: 39623151 PMC: 11893448. DOI: 10.1057/s41271-024-00534-w.

Gender differences in relations between social comparison, social support, and sleep disturbance among midlife and older adults.

Bercovitz I, Salvatore G, Mogle J, Arigo D Health Psychol Behav Med. 2024; 12(1):2390939.

PMID: 39157430 PMC: 11328798. DOI: 10.1080/21642850.2024.2390939.

References

Strickland O, Moloney M, Dietrich A, Myerburg S, Cotsonis G, Johnson R . Measurement issues related to data collection on the World Wide Web. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2003; 26(4):246-56. DOI: 10.1097/00012272-200310000-00003. View

Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski M, Schemitsch E, Tornetta P . Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2). J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3):e30. PMC: 1550617. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e30. View

Shaw J, Johnson J, Coons S . US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005; 43(3):203-20. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003. View

Barker L, Luman E, McCauley M, Chu S . Assessing equivalence: an alternative to the use of difference tests for measuring disparities in vaccination coverage. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156(11):1056-61. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf149. View

Schuirmann D . A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987; 15(6):657-80. DOI: 10.1007/BF01068419. View

Senior C, Phillips M, Barnes J, David A . An investigation into the perception of dominance from schematic faces: a study using the World-Wide Web. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999; 31(2):341-6. DOI: 10.3758/bf03207730. View

Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B . The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007; 45(5 Suppl 1):S3-S11. PMC: 2829758. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55. View

Raat H, Mangunkusumo R, Landgraf J, Kloek G, Brug J . Feasibility, reliability, and validity of adolescent health status measurement by the Child Health Questionnaire Child Form (CHQ-CF): internet administration compared with the standard paper version. Qual Life Res. 2007; 16(4):675-85. PMC: 1832149. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-006-9157-1. View

Wyatt J . When to use web-based surveys. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000; 7(4):426-9. PMC: 61446. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070426. View

10.

Eysenbach G, Wyatt J . Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res. 2003; 4(2):E13. PMC: 1761932. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13. View

11.

Walters S, Brazier J . Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(6):1523-32. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. View

12.

Nathanson A, Reinert S . Windsurfing injuries: results of a paper- and Internet-based survey. Wilderness Environ Med. 2000; 10(4):218-25. DOI: 10.1580/1080-6032(1999)010[0218:wiroap]2.3.co;2. View

13.

Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, Matthews K . Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3):e29. PMC: 1550608. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e29. View

14.

Bell H, Bridget Busch N, DiNitto D . Can you ask that over the telephone? Conducting sensitive or controversial research using random-digit dialing. Med Law. 2006; 25(1):59-81. View

15.

Birnbaum M . Human research and data collection via the internet. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004; 55:803-32. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601. View

16.

Davis R . Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: comparison with traditional methods. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000; 31(4):572-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200737. View

17.

Hays R, Farivar S, Liu H . Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2006; 2(1):63-7. DOI: 10.1081/copd-200050663. View

18.

Buchanan T, Smith J . Research on the Internet: validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000; 31(4):565-71. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200736. View

19.

Schonlau M . Will web surveys ever become part of mainstream research?. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3):e31. PMC: 1550607. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e31. View