Using item banks to construct measures of patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: Investigator perceptions

Clinical Trials

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 575-586

  Flynn, Kathryn E ^a,b,c   Dombeck, Carrie B ^a   DeWitt, Esi Morgan ^b   Schulman, Kevin A ^b   Weinfurt, Kevin P ^a,b  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c not available   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA BASE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF EVALUATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATABASES AS TOPIC; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SELF ASSESSMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 61449309292     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774508098414     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25(6): 535-52.
2. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N et al. 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.
3. Becker J, Schwartz C, Saris-Baglama RN et al. Using item response theory (IRT) for developing and evaluating the pain impact questionnaire (PIQ-6). Pain Med 2007; 8: s3: S129-S44.
4. Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N et al. Item response theory was used to shorten EORTC QLQ-C30 scales for use in palliative care. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(1): 36-44.
5. Bjorner JB, Petersen MA, Groenvold M et al. Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale. Qual Life Res 2004; 13(10): 1683-97.
6. Reeve BB, Burke LB, Chiang YP et al. Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by agencies within the US Health and Human Services. Qual Life Res 2007; 16(Suppl 1): 175-86.
7. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38(9 Suppl): II28-42.
8. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory (3rd edn), McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1994.
9. Reeve BB, Masse LC. Item response theory modeling for questionnaire evaluation. In Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J. (eds). Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2004.
10. Schaeffer GA, Bridgeman B, Golub-Smith ML, et al. Comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer adaptive test xcores on the GRE General Test: ETS; 1998. Report No. RR-98-38.
11. Newton DW, Boyle M, Catizone CA. The NAPLEX: evolution, purpose, scope, and educational implications. Am J Pharm Educ 2008; 72(2).
12. Federation of State Medical Boards and National Board of Medical Examiners. United States Medical Licensing Examination Bulletin of Information for Computer-based Testing. FSMB and NBME Joint Publication, Philadelphia, PA, 1999.
13. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2006 (Available from: http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/5460dft.pdf), Accessed 22 February, 2006.
14. Community Tracking Study: Physician Survey. 2000 (cited; Available from: http://ctsonline.s-3.com/psurvey. asp), Accessed 12 August, 2008.
15. Getz K, Faden L. Racial disparities among clinical research investigators. Am J Ther 2008; 15(1): 3-11.
16. Te Marvelde JM, Glas CA, Van Landeghem G, Van Damme J. Application of multidimensional item response theory models to longitudinal data. Educational & Psychological Measurement 2006; 66(1): 5-34.
17. Chakravarty EF, Bjorner JB, Fries JF. Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol 2007; 34(6): 1426-31.
18. Fries JF, Bruce B, Bjorner J, Rose M. More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65(Suppl 3): iii16-21.