Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity
Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.016
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Ware, John E., Jr.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bjorner, Jakob B.;Rose, Matthias;Ware, John E., Jr.
目的：测试给药方法（MOA）对患者报告结局测量信息系统（PROMIS）中开发的量表的评分水平、可靠性和有效性的影响。研究设计和设置：两个不重叠的平行表格，每个表格包含来自三个PROMIS项目库的八个项目923名患有慢性阻塞性肺病、抑郁症或类风湿性关节炎的成年人完成了（身体功能、疲劳和抑郁）。在随机交叉设计中，受试者通过交互式语音应答（IVR）技术、纸质问卷（PQ）、个人数字助理（PDA）或个人电脑（PC）回答一个表格，并通过PC回答第二个表格。方法等效性进行了评估，通过分析的差异分数，组内相关性（ICCs），收敛/判别validity.Results：在差异分数分析，没有发现显着的模式差异和所有的置信区间内预先规定的最小重要的差异0.2标准差。表格的信度非常高（ICC = 0.85-0.93）。只有一个跨模式ICC显著低于同模式ICC。有效性测试显示MOA没有差异效应。参与者更喜欢屏幕界面PQ和IVR.Conclusion：我们发现没有统计学或临床显着差异的评分水平或心理测量性能的IVR，PQ，或PDA管理与PC相比。(C)2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Objectives: To test the impact of the method of administration (MOA) on score level, reliability, and validity of scales developed in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).Study Design and Setting: Two nonoverlapping parallel forms each containing eight items from each of three PROMIS item banks (Physical Function, Fatigue, and Depression) were completed by 923 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or rheumatoid arthritis. In a randomized crossover design, subjects answered one form by interactive voice response (IVR) technology, paper questionnaire (PQ), personal digital assistant (PDA), or personal computer (PC) and a second form by PC, in the same administration. Method equivalence was evaluated through analyses of difference scores, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and convergent/discriminant validity.Results: In difference score analyses, no significant mode differences were found and all confidence intervals were within the prespecified minimal important difference of 0.2 standard deviation. Parallel-forms reliabilities were very high (ICC = 0.85-0.93). Only one across-mode ICC was significantly lower than the same-mode ICC. Tests of validity showed no differential effect by MOA. Participants preferred screen interface over PQ and IVR.Conclusion: We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in score levels or psychometric properties of IVR, PQ, or PDA administration compared with PC. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.