Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: An IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 217-227

  Bjorner, Jakob B ^a,b,c   Rose, Matthias ^d,e   Gandek, Barbara ^e   Stone, Arthur A ^f   Junghaenel, Doerte U ^f   Ware, John E ^e,g  

^a QualityMetric Incorporated   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT   (Denmark)

^d CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g John Ware Research Group   (United States)

Author keywords

Item response theory; Method of administration; Mode of administration; Patient reported outcomes; Quality of life; Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DEPRESSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SELF REPORT; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PULMONARY DISEASE, CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF REPORT; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84895062570     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0451-4     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value Health, 11(2), 322-333. (Pubitemid 351473608)
2. Raat, H., Mangunkusumo, R. T., Landgraf, J. M., et al. (2007). 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. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 675-685. (Pubitemid 46474954)
3. Yu, S. C. (2007). Comparison of Internet-based and paper-based questionnaires in Taiwan using multisample invariance approach. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 501-507. (Pubitemid 47328662)
4. Duncan, P., Reker, D., Kwon, S., et al. (2005). Measuring stroke impact with the Stroke Impact Scale: Telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Medical Care, 43(5), 507-515. (Pubitemid 40694613)
5. Hepner, K. A., Brown, J. A., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(4), 377-389. (Pubitemid 41608278)
6. de Vries, H., Elliott, M. N., Hepner, K. A., et al. (2005). Equivalence of mail and telephone responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Services Research, 40(6 Pt 2), 2120-2139. (Pubitemid 41814229)
7. Powers, J. R., Mishra, G., & Young, A. F. (2005). Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: Use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 149-154. (Pubitemid 40585237)
8. Beebe, T. J., McRae, J. A., Harrison, P. A., et al. (2005). Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(4), 421-424. (Pubitemid 40601992)
9. Kraus, L., & Augustin, R. (2001). Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: Comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction, 96(3), 459-471. (Pubitemid 32217485)
10. McHorney, C. A., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (1994). Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Medical Care, 32(6), 551-567.
11. Hanmer, J., Hays, R. D., & Fryback, D. G. (2007). Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 45(12), 1171-1179.
12. Hays, R. D., Kim, S., Spritzer, K. L., et al. (2009). Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores. Value Health, 12(6), 1035-1039.
13. Agel, J., Rockwood, T., Mundt, J. C., et al. (2001). Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics, 24(12), 1155-1157. (Pubitemid 34023937)
14. Dunn, J. A., Arakawa, R., Greist, J. H., & Clayton, A. H. (2007). Assessing the onset of antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction using interactive voice response technology. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(4), 525-532. (Pubitemid 46663034)
15. Rush, A. J., Bernstein, I. H., Trivedi, M. H., et al. (2006). An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the hamilton rating scale for depression: A sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report. Biological Psychiatry, 59(6), 493-501. (Pubitemid 43320536)
16. Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3-S11.
17. Broderick, J. E., Schwartz, J. E., Vikingstad, G., et al. (2008). The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain, 139(1), 146-157.
18. Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2010). Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: Accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods. Quality of Life Research, 19(8), 1163-1170.
19. Schneider, S., Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., & Broderick, J. E. (2011). Peak and end effects in patients' daily recall of pain and fatigue: A within-subjects analysis. J Pain, 12(2), 228-235.
20. Ware, J. E, Jr, Kosinski, M., Bayliss, M. S., et al. (1995). Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: Summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care, 33(4 Suppl), AS264-AS279.
21. Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., 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.
22. Ware, J. E, Jr, Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey. Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health institute, New England Medical Center.
23. Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). An NCME Instructional Module on the comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38-47.
24. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
25. Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., 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.
26. Kolen, M. L., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
27. Chew, L. D., Bradley, K. A., & Boyko, E. J. (2004). Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Family Medicine, 36, 588-594. (Pubitemid 39209565)
28. Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. (2007). Mplus user's guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
29. Hochberg, Y. (1988). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 75, 800-803.
30. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health, 12(4), 419-429.
32. Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., et al. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1-18.