Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks
- PMID: 20593306
- PMCID: PMC3670674
- DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5
Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks
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.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- U01AR52155/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052170/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052181/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01AR52170/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01AR52158/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01AR52171/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052155/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01AR52186/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052171/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052186/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052177/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01AR52177/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01AR52181/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 AR052158/AR/NIAMS NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
