Objective Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential when evaluating many new treatments in health care, yet current measures have been limited by a lack of precision, standardization and comparability of scores across studies and diseases. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS™) provides item banks that offer the potential for PRO measurement that is efficient (minimizes item number without compromising reliability) flexible (enables optional use of interchangeable items), and precise (has minimal error in estimate) measurement of commonly-studied PROs. We report results from the first large-scale testing of PROMIS items. Study Design and Setting Fourteen item pools were tested in the U.S. general population and clinical groups using an online panel and clinic recruitment. A scale-setting sub-sample was created reflecting demographics proportional to the 2000 U.S. census. Results Using item response theory (graded response model), 11 item banks were calibrated on a sample of 21,133, measuring components of self-reported physical, mental and social health, along with a 10-item global health scale. Short forms from each bank were developed and compared to the overall bank as well as with other well-validated and widely accepted (“legacy”) measures. All item banks demonstrated good reliability across the majority of the score distributions. Construct validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations with legacy measures. Conclusion PROMIS item banks and their short forms provide evidence they are reliable and precise measures of generic symptoms and functional reports comparable to legacy instruments. Further testing will continue to validate and test PROMIS items and banks in diverse clinical populations.

This paper describes the psychometric properties of the PROMIS Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) bank. An initial candidate item pool (n=644) was developed and evaluated based on review of existing instruments, interviews with patients, and consultation with pain experts. From this pool, a candidate item bank of 56 items was selected and responses to the items were collected from large community and clinical samples. A total of 14,848 participants responded to all or a subset of candidate items. The responses were calibrated using an item response theory (IRT) model. A final 41-item bank was evaluated with respect to IRT assumptions, model fit, differential item function (DIF), precision, and construct and concurrent validity. Items of the revised bank had good fit to the IRT model (CFI and NNFI/TLI ranged from 0.974 to 0.997), and the data were strongly unidimensional (e.g., ratio of first and second eigenvalue = 35). Nine items exhibited statistically significant DIF. However, adjusting for DIF had little practical impact on score estimates and the items were retained without modifying scoring. Scores provided substantial information across levels of pain; for scores in the T-score range 50-80, the reliability was equivalent to 0.96 to 0.99. Patterns of correlations with other health outcomes supported the construct validity of the item bank. The scores discriminated among persons with different numbers of chronic conditions, disabling conditions, levels of self-reported health, and pain intensity (p< 0.0001). The results indicated that the PROMIS-PI items constitute a psychometrically sound bank. Computerized adaptive testing and short forms are available.

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients’ lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting “responder analyses” in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement. Perspective A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Background: There is a need for valid self-report measures of core health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains.Objective: To derive brief, reliable and valid health profile measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ® (PROMIS ® ) item banks.Methods: Literature review, investigator consensus process, item response theory (IRT) analysis, and expert review of scaling results from multiple PROMIS data sets. We developed 3 profile measures ranging in length from 29 to 57 questions. These profiles assess important HRQoL domains with highly informative subsets of items from respective item banks and yield reliable information across mild-to-severe levels of HRQoL experiences. Each instrument assesses the domains of pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, physical function, and social function using 4-, 6-, and 8-item short forms for each domain, and an average pain intensity domain score, using a 0-10 numeric rating scale.Results: With few exceptions, all domain short forms within the profile measures were highly reliable across at least 3 standard deviation (30 T-score) units and were strongly correlated with the full bank scores. Construct validity with ratings of general health and quality of life was demonstrated. Information to inform statistical power for clinical and general population samples is also provided.Conclusions: Although these profile measures have been used widely, with summary scoring routines published, description of their development, reliability, and initial validity has not been published until this article. Further evaluation of these measures and clinical applications are encouraged.

Objective To present an overview of a series of studies in which the clinical validity of the National Institutes of Health’s Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (NIH; PROMIS) measures was evaluated, by domain, across six clinical populations. Study Design and Setting Approximately 1,500 individuals at baseline and 1,300 at follow-up completed PROMIS measures. The analyses reported in this issue were conducted post hoc, pooling data across six previous studies, and accommodating the different designs of the six, within-condition, parent studies. Changes in T-scores, standardized response means, and effect sizes were calculated in each study. When a parent study design allowed, known groups validity was calculated using a linear mixed model. Results The results provide substantial support for the clinical validity of nine PROMIS measures in a range of chronic conditions. Conclusion The cross-condition focus of the analyses provided a unique and multifaceted perspective on how PROMIS measures function in “real-world” clinical settings and provides external anchors that can support comparative effectiveness research. The current body of clinical validity evidence for the nine PROMIS measures indicates the success of NIH PROMIS in developing measures that are effective across a range of chronic conditions.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to calibrate the items for the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) using Item Response Theory (IRT). One overriding objective was to examine if the IRT item parameters would be consistent across different diagnostic groups, thereby allowing creation of a disorder-generic instrument. The intended outcomes were the final item bank and a short form ready for clinical and research applications. Methods Self-report data were collected from 701 individuals representing four diagnoses: multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and head and neck cancer. Participants completed the CPIB and additional self-report questionnaires. CPIB data were analyzed using the IRT Graded Response Model (GRM). Results The initial set of 94 candidate CPIB items were reduced to an item bank of 46 items demonstrating unidimensionality, local independence, good item fit, and good measurement precision. Differential item function (DIF) analyses detected no meaningful differences across diagnostic groups. A 10-item, disorder-generic short form was generated. Conclusions The CPIB provides speech-language pathologists with a unidimensional, self-report outcomes measurement instrument dedicated to the construct of communicative participation. This instrument may be useful to clinicians and researchers wanting to implement measures of communicative participation in their work.

No abstract

A B S T R A C T PurposeThe purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effect of a Web-based, self-report assessment and educational intervention on symptom distress during cancer therapy. Patients and MethodsA total of 752 ambulatory adult participants were randomly assigned to symptom/quality-of-life (SxQOL) screening at four time points (control) versus screening, targeted education, communication coaching, and the opportunity to track/graph SxQOL over time (intervention). A summary of the participant-reported data was delivered to clinicians at each time point in both groups. All participants used the assessment before a new therapeutic regimen, at 3 to 6 weeks and 6 to 8 weeks later, completing the final assessment at the end of therapy. Change in Symptom Distress Scale-15 (SDS-15) score from pretreatment to end of study was compared using analysis of covariance and regression analysis adjusting for selected variables. ResultsWe detected a significant difference between study groups in mean SDS-15 score change from baseline to end of study: 1.27 (standard deviation [SD], 6.7) in the control group (higher distress) versus Ϫ0.04 (SD, 5.8) in the intervention group (lower distress). SDS-15 score was reduced by an estimated 1.21 (95% CI, 0.23 to 2.20; P ϭ .02) in the intervention group. Baseline SDS-15 score (P Ͻ .001) and clinical service (P ϭ .01) were predictive. Multivariable analyses suggested an interaction between age and study group (P ϭ .06); in subset analysis, the benefit of intervention was strongest in those age Ͼ 50 years (P ϭ .002). ConclusionWeb-based self-care support and communication coaching added to SxQOL screening reduced symptom distress in a multicenter sample of participants with various diagnoses during and after active cancer treatment. Participants age Ͼ 50 years, in particular, may have benefited from the intervention.