biostudies-literatureCoster WJNational Institutes of HealthNIAMS NIH HHS1132-1138https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC5052096biostudies-literatureUnknown58(11)<h4>Aim</h4>The present study examined the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility, Fatigue, and Pain Interference Short Forms (SFs) in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) for the presence of differential item functioning (DIF) relative to the original calibration sample.<h4>Method</h4>Using the Graded Response Model we compared item parameter estimates generated from a sample of 303 children and adolescents with CP (175 males, 128 females; mean age 15y 5mo) to parameter estimates from the PROMIS calibration sample, which served as the reference group. DIF was assessed in a two-step process using the item response theory-likelihood ratio-differential item functioning detection procedure.<h4>Results</h4>Significant DIF was identified for fourDevelopmental medicine and child neurologyDifferential item functioning in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Short Forms in a sample of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.PMC5052096U01AR057929U01 AR057929Coster WJSlavin MDKisala PAMulcahey MJNandakumar RJette AMNi PTulsky DSfalseDifferential item functioning in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Short Forms in a sample of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.<h4>Aim</h4>The present study examined the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility, Fatigue, and Pain Interference Short Forms (SFs) in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) for the presence of differential item functioning (DIF) relative to the original calibration sample.<h4>Method</h4>Using the Graded Response Model we compared item parameter estimates generated from a sample of 303 children and adolescents with CP (175 males, 128 females; mean age 15y 5mo) to parameter estimates from the PROMIS calibration sample, which served as the reference group. DIF was assessed in a two-step process using the item response theory-likelihood ratio-differential item functioning detection procedure.<h4>Results</h4>Significant DIF was identified for four2016-01-01T00:00:00Z2016 Nov2025-04-04T01:05:42.442Z2019-03-27T02:25:56ZS-EPMC50520962709827710.1111/dmcn.13138