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
. 2010 Nov;19(9):1311-21.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5. Epub 2010 Jul 1.

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks

Affiliations

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks

William T Riley et al. Qual Life Res. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lohr K, for the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research. 2002;11:193–205. - PubMed
    1. Rothman ML, Beltran P, Cappelleri JC, Lipscomb J, Teschendorf B, the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group Patient-Reported Outcomes: Conceptual Issues. Value in Health. 2007;10(Suppl. 2):S66–S75. - PubMed
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: 2006. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformati.... - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Kline Leidy N, Patrick DL, Petrie CD. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for evaluation and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO Task Force report. Value in Health. 2009;8:1075–1083. - PubMed
    1. Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL. Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research. 2009;18:1263–1278. - PubMed

Publication types