Score equivalence of paper-, tablet-, and interactive voice response system-based versions of PROMIS, PRO-CTCAE, and numerical rating scales among cancer patients.
Score equivalence of paper-, tablet-, and interactive voice response system-based versions of PROMIS, PRO-CTCAE, and numerical rating scales among cancer patients.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s41687-021-00368-0
复制
发表时间：
2021-09-17
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Sloan JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee MK;Beebe TJ;Yost KJ;Eton DT;Novotny PJ;Dueck AC;Frost M;Sloan JA
该研究测试了数据收集模式对与多项指标（如患者报告结局测量系统（PROMIS®））和单项指标（如不良事件通用术语标准（PRO-CTCAE）的患者报告结局版本）和数字评定量表（NRS）指标相关的患者反应的影响。成年癌症患者从五个癌症中心招募，并管理焦虑，抑郁，疲劳，睡眠障碍，疼痛强度，疼痛干扰，参与社会角色和活动的能力，整体精神和身体健康，以及身体功能的措施。患者被随机分配在纸上（595）、交互式语音应答（IVR，596）系统或平板电脑（589）上完成测量。我们评估了差异项目功能（DIF）的数据收集方法，使用R软件包，lordif。对于未显示DIF的结构，如果等效性界值（定义为± 0.20 ×合并SD）完全包围平均评分差异的95%置信区间（CI），则我们得出结论，各模式之间具有等效性。如果95% CI完全超出等效性界值，则我们得出按模式划分的系统评分差异。如果95% CI与等效性界值部分重叠，则我们得出既不等效也不差异的结论。对于所有结构，没有发现任何类型的DIF的三种模式。纸质和平板电脑上的评分比IVR和其他模式之间的评分更具可比性，但95% CI均未完全超出等效性界值，我们在等效性界值中既未确定等效性，也未确定差异。对于纸张和片剂模式，缺失值的范围相当。IVR（2.3%-6.5%，取决于测量值）的缺失值百分比高于纸质和平板模式（0.7%-3.3%，取决于测量值和模式），这归因于一些中心遇到的随机技术困难。在所有的模式比较中，有一些措施的CI不完全包含在小的影响范围内。两个视觉模式同意更多的视听对。IVR可能会导致与纸和平板电脑相比与测量结构无关的评分差异。调查的使用者只应在纸张和计算机管理不可行的情况下才考虑使用IVR。
The study tests the effects of data collection modes on patient responses associated with the multi-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS®), and single-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) measures. Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers and administered measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, global mental and physical health, and physical function. Patients were randomized to complete the measures on paper (595), interactive voice response (IVR, 596) system, or tablet computer (589). We evaluated differential item functioning (DIF) by method of data collection using the R software package, lordif. For constructs that showed no DIF, we concluded equivalence across modes if the equivalence margin, defined as ± 0.20 × pooled SD, completely surrounds 95% confidence intervals (CI's) for difference in mean score. If the 95% CI fell totally outside the equivalence margin, we concluded systematic score difference by modes. If the 95% CI partly overlaps the equivalence margin, we concluded neither equivalence nor difference. For all constructs, no DIF of any kind was found for the three modes. The scores on paper and tablet were more comparable than between IVR and other modes but none of the 95% CI’s were completely outside the equivalence margins, in which we established neither equivalence nor difference. Percentages of missing values were comparable for paper and tablet modes. Percentages of missing values were higher for IVR (2.3% to 6.5% depending on measures) compared to paper and tablet modes (0.7% to 3.3% depending on measures and modes), which was attributed to random technical difficulties experienced in some centers. Across all mode comparisons, there were some measures with CI’s not completely contained within the margin of small effect. Two visual modes agreed more than visual-auditory pairs. IVR may induce differences in scores unrelated to constructs being measured in comparison with paper and tablet. The users of the surveys should consider using IVR only when paper and computer administration is not feasible.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Weiler, K;Christ, AM;Weiler, JM
通讯作者：
Weiler, JM
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Chew, Lisa D.;Griffin, Joan M.;VanRyn, Michelle
通讯作者：
VanRyn, Michelle
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Muehlhausen, Willie;Doll, Helen;Wild, Diane J.
通讯作者：
Wild, Diane J.
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Rasmussen, Sofie Larsen;Rejnmark, Lars;Watt, Torquil
通讯作者：
Watt, Torquil
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Shea, Judy A.;Guerra, Carmen E.;Asch, David A.
通讯作者：
Asch, David A.