Dataset Information

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods. METHODS:We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents (n?=?1001 with cancer; n?=?1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three recall conditions (no recall, 24-hours, or 7-days) and one of two "reminder" conditions (with recall periods presented only at the start of the survey or with every item). We assessed items for potential differential item functioning (DIF) by recall time period. We then tested recall and reminder effects with analysis of variance controlling for demographics, English fluency, and co-morbidities. RESULTS:Based on conservative pre-set criteria, no items were flagged for recall time period-related DIF. Using analysis of variance, each condition was compared to the standard PROMIS administration for Physical Function (no recall period). There was no evidence of significant differences among groups in the cancer sample. In the general population sample, only the 24-hour recall condition with reminders was significantly different from the "no recall" PROMIS standard. At the item level, for both samples, the number of items with non-trivial effect size differences across conditions was minimal. CONCLUSIONS:Compared to no recall, the use of a recall period has little to no effect upon PROMIS physical function responses or scores. We recommend that PROMIS Physical Function be administered with the standard PROMIS "no recall" period.

SUBMITTER: Condon DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7199782 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS<sup>®</sup> physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

Condon David M DM Chapman Robert R Shaunfield Sara S Kallen Michael A MA Beaumont Jennifer L JL Eek Daniel D Mitra Debanjali D Benjamin Katy L KL McQuarrie Kelly K Liu Jamae J Shaw James W JW Martin Nguyen Allison A Keating Karen K Cella David D

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 20191107 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods.<h4>Methods</h4>We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents (n = 1001 with cancer; n = 1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assi ...[more]

PMID: 31701432

Similar Datasets

Project description:This is the first study of the measurement equivalence of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Anxiety short forms in a large ethnically diverse sample. The psychometric properties and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined across different racial/ethnic, educational, age, gender and language groups.MethodsThese data are from individuals selected from cancer registries in the United States. For the analyses of race/ethnicity the reference group was non-Hispanic Whites (n = 2,263), the studied groups were non-Hispanic Blacks (n = 1,117), Hispanics (n = 1,043) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (n = 907). Within the Hispanic subsample, there were 335 interviews conducted in Spanish and 703 in English. The 11 anxiety items were from the PROMIS emotional disturbance item bank. DIF hypotheses were generated by content experts who rated whether or not they expected DIF to be present, and the direction of the DIF with respect to several comparison groups. The primary method used for DIF detection was the Wald test for examination of group differences in item response theory (IRT) item parameters accompanied by magnitude measures. Expected item scores were examined as measures of magnitude. The method used for quantification of the difference in the average expected item scores was the non-compensatory DIF (NCDIF) index. DIF impact was examined using expected scale score functions. Additionally, precision and reliabilities were examined using several methods.ResultsAlthough not hypothesized to show DIF for Asians/Pacific Islanders, every item evidenced DIF by at least one method. Two items showed DIF of higher magnitude for Asians/Pacific Islanders vs. Whites: "Many situations made me worry" and "I felt anxious". However, the magnitude of DIF was small and the NCDIF statistics were not above threshold. The impact of DIF was negligible. For education, six items were identified with consistent DIF across methods: fearful, anxious, worried, hard to focus, uneasy and tense. However, the NCDIF was not above threshold and the impact of DIF on the scale was trivial. No items showed high magnitude DIF for gender. Two items showed slightly higher magnitude for age (although not above the cutoff): worried and fearful. The scale level impact was trivial. Only one item showed DIF with the Wald test after the Bonferroni correction for the language comparisons: "I felt fearful". Two additional items were flagged in sensitivity analyses after Bonferroni correction, anxious and many situations made me worry. The latter item also showed DIF of higher magnitude, with an NCDIF value (0.144) above threshold. Individual impact was relatively small.ConclusionsAlthough many items from the PROMIS short form anxiety measures were flagged with DIF, item level magnitude was low and scale level DIF impact was minimal; however, three items: anxious, worried and many situations made me worry might be singled out for further study. It is concluded that the PROMIS Anxiety short form evidenced good psychometric properties, was relatively invariant across the groups studied, and performed well among ethnically diverse subgroups of Blacks, Hispanic, White non-Hispanic and Asians/Pacific Islanders. In general more research with the Asians/Pacific Islanders group is needed. Further study of subgroups within these broad categories is recommended.

Project description:Short form measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) are used widely. The present study was among the first to examine differential item functioning (DIF) in the PROMIS Depression short form scales in a sample of over 5000 racially/ethnically diverse patients with cancer. DIF analyses were conducted across different racial/ethnic, educational, age, gender and language groups.MethodsDIF hypotheses, generated by content experts, informed the evaluation of the DIF analyses. The graded item response theory (IRT) model was used to evaluate the five-level ordinal items. The primary tests of DIF were Wald tests; sensitivity analyses were conducted using the IRT ordinal logistic regression procedure. Magnitude was evaluated using expected item score functions, and the non-compensatory differential item functioning (NCDIF) and T1 indexes, both based on group differences in the item curves. Aggregate impact was evaluated with expected scale score (test) response functions; individual impact was assessed through examination of differences in DIF adjusted and unadjusted depression estimates.ResultsMany items evidenced DIF; however, only a few had slightly elevated magnitude. No items evidenced salient DIF with respect to NCDIF and the scale-level impact was minimal for all group comparisons. The following short form items might be targeted for further study because they were also hypothesized to evidence DIF. One item showed slightly higher magnitude of DIF for age: nothing to look forward to; conditional on depression, this item was more likely to be endorsed in the depressed direction by individuals in older groups as contrasted with the cohort aged 21 to 49. This item was also hypothesized to show age DIF. Only one item (failure) showed DIF of slightly higher magnitude (just above threshold) for Whites vs. Asians/Pacific Islanders in the direction of higher likelihood of endorsement for Asians/Pacific Islanders. This item was also hypothesized to show DIF for minority groups. The impact of DIF was negligible. Conditional on depression, the items, worthless and hopeless were more likely to be endorsed in the depressed direction by respondents with less than high school education vs. those with a graduate degree; the magnitude of DIF was slightly above the T1 threshold, but not that of NCDIF. These items were also hypothesized to show DIF in the direction of more feelings of worthlessness by groups with lower education. While the magnitude and aggregate impact of DIF was small, in a few instances, individual impact was observed. Information provided was relatively high, particularly in the middle upper (depressed) tail of the distribution. Reliability estimates were high (> 0.90) across all studied groups, regardless of estimation method.ConclusionsThis was the first study to evaluate measurement equivalence of the PROMIS Depression short forms across large samples of ethnically diverse groups. There were few items with DIF, and none of high magnitude, thus supporting the use of PROMIS Depression short form measures across such groups. These results could be informative for those using the short forms in minority populations or clinicians evaluating individuals with the depression short forms.

Dataset Information

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

Publications

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS<sup>®</sup> physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets