Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS® pediatric measures, self- and proxy report

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1655-1665

  Magnus, Brooke E ^a   Liu, Yang ^b   He, Jason ^a   Quinn, Hally ^a   Thissen, David ^a   Gross, Heather E ^c   DeWalt, Darren A ^d   Reeve, Bryce B ^c,e  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Mode of administration; Parent proxy; PROMIS; Self report

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SELF ADMINISTRATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPRESSION; DEPRESSION ASSESSMENT; FATIGUE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM; PERSONAL COMPUTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROXY; SCHOOL CHILD; SELF REPORT; TELEPHONE; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; ADULT; COMPUTER; INTERVIEW; NURSING; PARENT; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PEDIATRIC NURSING; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; COMPUTERS; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; PARENTS; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; PEDIATRIC NURSING; PROXY; PSYCHOMETRICS; TELEPHONE;

EID: 84952705332     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: 15732649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1221-2     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., 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. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.
2. Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2014). 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, 23(1), 217–227. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0451-4.
3. Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016.
4. Beebe, T. J., McRae, J. A, Jr., Harrison, P. A., Davern, M. E., & Quinlan, K. B. (2005). Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(4), 421–424.
5. 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. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181354828.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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. doi:10.1080/0965214002005428.
9. Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 595–607. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9619-3.
10. ® pediatric fatigue item banks. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0357-1.
11. Dewitt, E. M., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Langer, M., Varni, J. W., et al. (2011). Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: Built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 794–804. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.012.
12. ® parent proxy report scales: An item response theory analysis of the parent proxy report item banks. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1223–1240. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0025-2.
13. Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
14. Robinson-Cimpian, J. P. (2014). Inaccurate estimation of disparities due to mischievous responders: Several suggestions to assess conclusions. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 171–185. doi:10.3102/0013189x14534297.
15. Bock, R. D. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16. Schwartz, C. E., Andresen, E. M., Nosek, M. A., Krahn, G. L., & RRTC Expert Panel on Health Status Measurement. (2007). Response shift theory: Important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(4), 529–536. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.032.
17. Thissen, D., & Norton, S. (2013). What might changes in psychometric approaches to statewide testing mean for NAEP? In Examining the content and context of the common core state standards: A first look at implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 253–304).
18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Maronna, R. A., & Yohai, V. J. (1995). The behavior of the Stahel–Donoho robust multivariate estimator. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), 330–341.