TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions
T2 - Further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks
AU - Riley, William T.
AU - Rothrock, Nan
AU - Bruce, Bonnie
AU - Christodolou, Christopher
AU - Cook, Karon
AU - Hahn, Elizabeth A.
AU - Cella, David
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgments The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap initiative to develop a computerized system measuring patient-reported outcomes in respondents with a wide range of chronic diseases and demographic characteristics. PROMIS was funded by cooperative agreements to a Statistical Coordinating Center (Northwestern University, PI: David Cella, PhD, U01AR52177) and six Primary Research Sites (Duke University, PI: Kevin Weinfurt, PhD, U01AR52186; University of North Carolina, PI: Darren DeW-alt, MD, MPH, U01AR52181; University of Pittsburgh, PI: Paul A. Pilkonis, PhD, U01AR52155; Stanford University, PI: James Fries, MD, U01AR52158; Stony Brook University, PI: Arthur Stone, PhD, U01AR52170; and University of Washington, PI: Dagmar Amtmann, PhD, U01AR52171). NIH Science Officers on this project have included Deborah Ader, PhD, Susan Czajkowski, PhD, Lawrence Fine, MD, DrPH, Laura Lee Johnson, PhD, Louis Quatrano, PhD, Bryce Reeve, PhD, William Riley, PhD, Susana Serrate-Sztein, MD, and James Witter, MD, PhD. This manuscript was reviewed by the PROMIS Publications Subcommittee prior to external peer review. See the Web site at www.nihpromis.org for additional information on the PROMIS cooperative group.
PY - 2010/11
Y1 - 2010/11
N2 - Purpose: Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content. Methods: A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions. Results: These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content. Conclusions: This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.
AB - Purpose: Content validity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is evaluated primarily during item development, but subsequent psychometric analyses, particularly for item response theory (IRT)-derived scales, often result in considerable item pruning and potential loss of content. After selecting items for the PROMIS banks based on psychometric and content considerations, we invited external content expert reviews of the degree to which the initial domain names and definitions represented the calibrated item bank content. Methods: A minimum of four content experts reviewed each item bank and recommended a domain name and definition based on item content. Domain names and definitions then were revealed to the experts who rated how well these names and definitions fit the bank content and provided recommendations for definition revisions. Results: These reviews indicated that the PROMIS domain names and definitions remained generally representative of bank content following item pruning, but modifications to two domain names and minor to moderate revisions of all domain definitions were needed to optimize fit with the item bank content. Conclusions: This reevaluation of domain names and definitions following psychometric item pruning, although not previously documented in the literature, appears to be an important procedure for refining conceptual frameworks and further supporting content validity.
KW - Conceptual framework
KW - Content validity
KW - Domain definition
KW - Item response theory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78349308646&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78349308646&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5
DO - 10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 20593306
AN - SCOPUS:78349308646
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 19
SP - 1311
EP - 1321
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 9
ER -