Differential Item Functioning to Validate Setting of Delivery Compatibility in PROMIS-global Health

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2022 Jan 20

PMID 35050447

Authors

Dylan J Parker

Paul M Werth

David D Christensen

David S Jevsevar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) such as PROMIS are increasingly utilized in healthcare to assess patient perception and functional status, but the effect of delivery setting remains to be fully investigated. To our knowledge, no current study establishes the absence of differential item functioning (DIF) across delivery setting for these PROMIS- Global Health (PROMIS-GH) measures among orthopedic patients. We sought to investigate the correlation of PROMIS-GH scores across in-clinic versus remote delivery by evaluating DIF within the Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) items. We hypothesize that the setting of delivery of the GPH and GMH domains of PROMIS-GH will not impact the results of the measure, allowing direct comparison between the two delivery settings.

Methods: Five thousand and seven hundred and eighty-five complete PROMIS-Global Health measures were analyzed retrospectively using the 'Lordif' package on the R platform. DIF was measured for GPH and GMH domains across setting of response (in-clinic vs remote) during the pre-operative period, immediate post-operative period, and 1-year post-operative period using Monte Carlo estimation. McFadden pseudo-R2 thresholds (> 0.02) were used to assess the magnitude of DIF for individual PROMIS items.

Results: No GPH or GMH items contained in the PROMIS-GH instrument yielded DIF across in-clinic vs remote delivery setting during the pre-operative, immediate post-operative, or 1-year post-operative window.

Conclusion: The GPH and GMH domains within the PROMIS-GH instrument may be delivered in the clinic or remotely with comparable accuracy. This cross-delivery setting validation analysis may aid to improve the quality of patient care by allowing mixed platform PROMIS-GH data tailored to individual patient circumstance.

Citing Articles

Psychometric properties and general population reference values for PROMIS Global Health in Hungary.

Bato A, Brodszky V, Mitev A, Jenei B, Rencz F Eur J Health Econ. 2023; 25(4):549-562.

PMID: 37378690 PMC: 11136746. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01610-w.

Smartphone videos of the sit-to-stand test predict osteoarthritis and health outcomes in a nationwide study.

Boswell M, Kidzinski L, Hicks J, Uhlrich S, Falisse A, Delp S NPJ Digit Med. 2023; 6(1):32.

PMID: 36871119 PMC: 9985590. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-023-00775-1.

References

Black N . Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013; 346:f167. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f167. View

Fries J, Witter J, Rose M, Cella D, Khanna D, Morgan-DeWitt E . Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: assessment of physical function. J Rheumatol. 2013; 41(1):153-8. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.130813. View

Reeve B, Hays R, Bjorner J, Cook K, Crane P, Teresi J . Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007; 45(5 Suppl 1):S22-31. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04. View

Crins M, Terwee C, Ogreden O, Schuller W, Dekker P, Flens G . Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Qual Life Res. 2019; 28(5):1231-1243. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2087-x. View

Cook K, Bamer A, Amtmann D, Molton I, Jensen M . Six patient-reported outcome measurement information system short form measures have negligible age- or diagnosis-related differential item functioning in individuals with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93(7):1289-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.022. View

Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S . The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(11):1179-94. PMC: 2965562. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011. View

Gregory J, Werth P, Reilly C, Jevsevar D . Cross-specialty PROMIS-global health differential item functioning. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30(8):2339-2348. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-02812-6. View

Bliven B, Kaufman S, Spertus J . Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res. 2001; 10(1):15-22. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016740312904. View

Campbell N, Ali F, Finlay A, Salek S . Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24(8):1949-61. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-0937-3. View

10.

Hartkopf A, Graf J, Simoes E, Keilmann L, Sickenberger N, Gass P . Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. JMIR Cancer. 2017; 3(2):e11. PMC: 5565790. DOI: 10.2196/cancer.6996. View

11.

Jensen R, Snyder C, Abernethy A, Basch E, Potosky A, Roberts A . Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2013; 10(4):e215-22. PMC: 4094646. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001067. View

12.

Bjorner J, Rose M, Gandek B, Stone A, Junghaenel D, Ware Jr J . Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 67(1):108-13. PMC: 4051417. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016. View

13.

Gwaltney C, Shields A, Shiffman S . Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008; 11(2):322-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x. View

14.

Rutherford C, Costa D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rice H, Gabb L, King M . Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 2015; 25(3):559-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8. View

15.

Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J . Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58(8):635-41. PMC: 1732856. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2003.008466. View

16.

Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W . Does it matter whom and how you ask? inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(2):127-35. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00314-9. View

17.

Khoury M, Flanders W . Bias in using family history as a risk factor in case-control studies of disease. Epidemiology. 1995; 6(5):511-9. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199509000-00009. View

18.

Hammarstedt J, Redmond J, Gupta A, Dunne K, Vemula S, Domb B . Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 25(1):50-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3802-6. View

19.

Hutchings A, Frie K, Neuburger J, van der Meulen J, Black N . Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 66(2):218-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.001. View

20.

Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, Shen J, Morales L, Riley W . Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(11):1169-78. PMC: 2943555. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021. View