Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.
Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11136-022-03255-3
复制
发表时间：
2023-05
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Dueck, Amylou C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Minji K.;Peipert, John D.;Cella, David;Yost, Kathleen J.;Eton, David T.;Novotny, Paul J.;Sloan, Jeff A.;Dueck, Amylou C.
关键词：
本研究比较经典测验理论和项目反应理论框架，以确定可靠的变化。可靠的变化之后，锚定在标准测量上的类别不同的反应的变化是检测目标测量上有意义的变化的有用方法。成年癌症患者来自五个癌症中心。6周时进行基线和随访评估。我们调查了来自PROMIS®题库的关于焦虑、抑郁、疲劳、疼痛强度、疼痛干扰和睡眠障碍的简短形式。我们使用可靠变化指数（RCI）检测可靠变化。我们使用PROMIS®短表格推导了IRT和CTT框架下计算的RCI对应的t得分。对于可靠的变化，使用患者报告的PRO-CTCAE至少一个水平的变化来确定有意义的变化。对于CTT和IRT方法，我们采用单侧检验来检测可靠的RCI改善或恶化。我们比较了可靠改变和可靠/有意义改变的患者百分比。RCICTT为1.65对应的T评分变化量根据域的不同在5.1 ~ 9.2之间。RCIIRT为1.65对应的变化量在评分范围内变化，最小变化范围为3.0至8.2，具体取决于域。在各个领域，RCICTT和RCIIRT对80%至98%的患者进行了一致的分类。当存在分歧时，如果两个时间点的焦虑评分在43 - 78分之间，抑郁评分在45 - 70分之间，疲劳评分在38 - 80分之间，睡眠障碍评分在35 - 78分之间，疼痛干扰评分在48 - 74分之间，由于使用IRT方法在这些范围内的标准误差较小，RCIIRT倾向于识别出与RCICTT相比有可靠变化的患者。与IRT相比，CTT方法在长度较短的疼痛强度域上发现了更多的变化。使用RCICTT， 22%至66%的患者根据域在任何方向上都有可靠的变化，在这些患者中，62%至83%的患者有有意义的变化。使用RCIIRT， 37%至68%的患者有可靠的变化，在这些患者中，62%至81%的患者有有意义的变化。应用本研究中展示的两步标准，我们确定了在不同水平的基线分数上需要多少变化来声明可靠的变化。我们为使用PROMIS仪器的肿瘤学研究人员提供有意义改变的患者百分比的参考值。在线版本包含补充材料，可在10.1007/s11136-022-03255-3获得。
This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03255-3.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
28.4
作者：
Dueck AC;Mendoza TR;Mitchell SA;Reeve BB;Castro KM;Rogak LJ;Atkinson TM;Bennett AV;Denicoff AM;O'Mara AM;Li Y;Clauser SB;Bryant DM;Bearden JD 3rd;Gillis TA;Harness JK;Siegel RD;Paul DB;Cleeland CS;Schrag D;Sloan JA;Abernethy AP;Bruner DW;Minasian LM;Basch E;National Cancer Institute PRO-CTCAE Study Group
通讯作者：
National Cancer Institute PRO-CTCAE Study Group
影响因子：
3
作者：
Stover, Angela M.;Stricker, Carrie Tompkins;Basch, Ethan M.
通讯作者：
Basch, Ethan M.
影响因子：
3
作者：
Hays RD;Spritzer KL;Reise SP
通讯作者：
Reise SP
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Lee MK;Schalet BD;Cella D;Yost KJ;Dueck AC;Novotny PJ;Sloan JA
通讯作者：
Sloan JA
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
JACOBSON, NS;TRUAX, P
通讯作者：
TRUAX, P