nach oben

Erschienen in:

07.11.2019

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

verfasst von: David M. Condon, Robert Chapman, Sara Shaunfield, Michael A. Kallen, Jennifer L. Beaumont, Daniel Eek, Debanjali Mitra, Katy L. Benjamin, Kelly McQuarrie, Jamae Liu, James W. Shaw, Allison Martin Nguyen, Karen Keating, David Cella

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: key lessons for a new instrument

Nächster Artikel Factors contributing to the ceiling effect of the EQ-5D-5L: an analysis of patients with prostate cancer judged “no-problems”

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Weeks, W. B., & Weinstein, J. N. (2016). Patient-reported data can help people make better health care choices. New England Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from https://catalyst.nejm.org/patient-reported-data-can-help-people-make-better-health-care-choices/. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.

Butt, Z., & Reeve, B. (2012). Enhancing the patient’s voice: Standards in the design and selection of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for use in patient-centered outcomes research. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register,74(235), 65132–65133.

Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., Bass, B., de Vet, H., Duffy, H., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research,22(6), 1161–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0252-1.CrossRefPubMed

Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care,45(Suppl 1), S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). Initial adult health item banks and first wave testing of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A.-W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols. JAMA,319(5), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21903.CrossRefPubMed

Cook, K., Jensen, S. E., Schalet, B. D., Beaumont, J. L., Amtmann, D., Czajkowski, S., et al. (2016). PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,73, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.038.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jensen, R. E., Potosky, A. L., Reeve, B. B., Hahn, E., Cella, D., Fries, J., et al. (2015). Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients. Quality of Life Research,24(10), 2333–2344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0992-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., Choi, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,92(10), S20–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.08.033.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research,65(10), 1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22025.CrossRef

12.

Rothrock, N., Hays, R., Spritzer, K., Yount, S., Riley, W., & Cella, D. (2010). Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Reeve, B., Hays, R., Bjorner, J., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care,45(5), S22–S31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schalet, B. D., Revicki, D. A., Cook, K. F., Krishnan, E., Fries, J. F., & Cella, D. (2015). Establishing a common metric for physical function: Linking the HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF subscale to PROMIS physical function. Journal of General Internal Medicine,30(10), 1517–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3360-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Riley, W., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E., et al. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: Further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research,19(9), 1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., Schalet, B. D., & Cella, D. (2018). PROMIS-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1842-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Jensen, S. E., Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., Reeve, B. B., et al. (2016). PROMIS® fatigue item bank has clinical validity across diverse chronic conditions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.037.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: Linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,28, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.11.006.CrossRefPubMed

20.

DeWalt, D., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care,45(5 Suppl 1), S12–S21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Garcia, S. F., Cella, D., Clauser, S. B., Flynn, K. E., Lad, T., Lai, J. S., et al. (2007). Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: A patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative,25(32), 5106–5112. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.12.2341.CrossRef

22.

Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (2012). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer.

23.

Bradburn, N. M., Rips, L. J., & Shevell, S. K. (1987). Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science,236(4798), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563494.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Erskine, A., Morley, S., & Pain, S. P. (1990). Memory for pain: A review. Pain,41, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(90)90002-U.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin,128(6), 934–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Gorin, A. A., & Stone, A. A. (2001). Recall biases and cognitive errors in retrospective self-reports: A call for momentary assessments. Handbook of Health Psychology,23, 405–413.

27.

Redelmeier, D. A., & Pain, D. K. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain,66, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Menon, G., & Yorkston, E. A. (1999). The use of memory and contextual cues in the formation of behavioral frequency judgments. In A. A. Stone, J. S. Turkkan, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The science of self-report implications for research and practice (pp. 63–79). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

29.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,61(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). The PROMIS physical function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,67(5), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

de Vries, S. T., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M., de Zeeuw, D., & Denig, P. (2014). The validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire using different recall periods. Quality of Life Research,23(9), 2439–2445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0715-7.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Broderick, J. E., Schwartz, J. E., Vikingstad, G., Pribbernow, M., Grossman, S., & Stone, A. A. (2008). The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain,139(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.03.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2010). Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: Accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods. Quality of Life Research,19(8), 1163–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9681-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Stull, D. E., Leidy, N. K., Parasuraman, B., & Chassany, O. (2009). Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: Challenges and potential solutions. Current Medical Research and Opinion,25(4), 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902774765.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Norquist, J. M., Girman, C., Fehnel, S., DeMuro-Mercon, C., & Santanello, N. (2012). Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: Criteria for consideration. Quality of Life Research,21(6), 1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0003-8.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Lai, J.-S., Cook, K., Stone, A., Beaumont, J., & Cella, D. (2009). Classical test theory and item response theory/Rasch model to assess differences between patient-reported fatigue using 7-day and 4-week recall periods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,62(9), 991–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Batterham, P. J., Sunderland, M., Carragher, N., & Calear, A. L. (2017). Psychometric properties of 7- and 30-day versions of the PROMIS emotional distress item banks in an Australian adult sample. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116685809.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Barta, W. D., Tennen, H., & Litt, M. D. (2012). Measurement reactivity in diary research. In M. R. Mehl & M. Connor (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 108–123). New York: Guilford Press.

39.

Yost, K. J., Eton, D. T., Garcia, S. F., & Cella, D. (2011). Minimally important differences were estimated for six patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,64(5), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Northwestern University. (2018). HealthMeasures: Transforming how health is measured. Retrieved from http://www.healthmeasures.net/. Accessed 11 Jan 2018.

41.

Hays, R., Bjorner, J., Revicki, D., Spritzer, K., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. European Journal of Cancer,18(7), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.CrossRef

42.

Yanez, B., Pearman, T., Lis, C. G., Beaumont, J. L., & Cella, D. (2012). The FACT-G7: A rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research. Annals of Oncology,24(4), 1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds539.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research,18(4), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.

46.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling a Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

47.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

48.

McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

49.

Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research,16(Suppl 1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment,92(6), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment,95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods,21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). Lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software,39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Released 2017.

55.

Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Titel: Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall
verfasst von: David M. Condon
Robert Chapman
Sara Shaunfield
Michael A. Kallen
Jennifer L. Beaumont
Daniel Eek
Debanjali Mitra
Katy L. Benjamin
Kelly McQuarrie
Jamae Liu
James W. Shaw
Allison Martin Nguyen
Karen Keating
David Cella
Publikationsdatum: 07.11.2019
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02344-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: key lessons for a new instrument

Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of TNO-AZL Preschool Children Quality of Life in children with cerebral palsy

Living with an invisible illness: a qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of female children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia

Consistency matters: measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in patients with hematologic malignancies

Health-related quality of life and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in contemporary acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The cost-effectiveness analysis of drug therapy versus surgery for symptomatic adenoid hypertrophy by a Markov model