Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008;5(6):575-86.
doi: 10.1177/1740774508098414.

Using item banks to construct measures of patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: investigator perceptions

Kathryn E Flynn  1 , Carrie B Dombeck, Esi Morgan DeWitt, Kevin A Schulman, Kevin P Weinfurt
Affiliations

Using item banks to construct measures of patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: investigator perceptions

Kathryn E Flynn et al. Clin Trials. 2008.

Abstract

Background: Item response theory (IRT) promises more sensitive and efficient measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) than traditional approaches; however, the selection and use of PRO measures from IRT-based item banks differ from current methods of using PRO measures.

Purpose: To anticipate barriers to the adoption of IRT item banks into clinical trials.

Methods: We conducted semistructured telephone or in-person interviews with 42 clinical researchers who published results from clinical trials in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, or other leading clinical journals from July 2005 through May 2006. Interviews included a brief tutorial on IRT item banks.

Results: After the tutorial, 39 of 42 participants understood the novel products available from an IRT item bank, namely customized short forms and computerized adaptive testing. Most participants (38/42) thought that item banks could be useful in their clinical trials, but they mentioned several potential barriers to adoption, including economic and logistical constraints, concerns about whether item banks are better than current PRO measures, concerns about how to convince study personnel or statisticians to use item banks, concerns about FDA or sponsor acceptance, and the lack of availability of item banks validated in specific disease populations.

Limitations: Selection bias might have led to more positive responses to the concept of item banks in clinical trials.

Conclusions: Clinical investigators are open to a new method of PRO measurement offered in IRT item banks, but bank developers must address investigator and stakeholder concerns before widespread adoption can be expected.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials. 2004 Dec;25(6):535–52. - PubMed
    1. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Becker J, Schwartz C, Saris-Baglama RN, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB. Using item response theory (IRT) for developing and evaluating the Pain Impact Questionnaire (PIQ-6) Pain Med. 2007;8(s3):S129–S44.
    1. Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N, Blazeby J, Brandberg Y, de Graeff A, et al. Item response theory was used to shorten EORTC QLQ-C30 scales for use in palliative care. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jan;59(1):36–44. - PubMed
    1. Bjorner JB, Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, Arraras JI, et al. Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale. Qual Life Res. 2004 Dec;13(10):1683–97. - PubMed

Publication types