Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Self-reports of health provide useful information about function and well-being that can improve communication between patients and clinicians. Global health items provide summary information that are predictive of health care utilization and mortality. There is a need for parsimonious global health scales for use in large sample surveys. This study evaluates the reliability and validity of brief measures of global physical health and mental health in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®) project.

Methods

A total of 21,133 persons included in the PROMIS development sample: 52% female; 82% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic; median age of 50 years. We identified two global physical health items (GPH-2) and two global mental health items (GMH-2) with highest discrimination parameters and compared their reliabilities and construct validity to that of the original 4-item scales (GPH-4 and GMH-4) and a single global health item (Global01).

Results

Internal consistency reliability was 0.73 for the GPH-2 (versus 0.81 for the GPH-4) and 0.81 for the GMH-2 (versus 0.86 for the GMH-4). Marginal reliabilities were 0.55 for Global01, 0.70 for GPH-2, 0.79 for GPH-4, 0.80 for GMH-2, and 0.86 for GMH-4. The product-moment correlation between the GPH-2 and GPH-4 was 0.94 and between GMH-2 and GMH-4 was 0.97. The 2-item and 4-item versions of the scales had similar correlations with PROMIS domain scores, the EQ-5D-3L and comorbidities, but the 4-item scales were more strongly correlated with these measures.

Conclusions

Adding a single item to a large cross-sectional population survey can cost as much as $100,000. The 2-item variants of the PROMIS global health scales reduce the cost of use on national surveys by 50%, a substantial cost savings. These briefer scales are also more practical for use in clinical practice. The 2-item versions of the PROMIS global health scales display adequate reliability for group comparisons and their associations with other indicators of health are similar to that of the original 4-item scales. The briefer scales are psychometrically sound and reduce burden of survey administration.

Related collections

Most cited references 7

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

Lee Cronbach (1951)

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334

0 comments Cited 6308 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel.

William Riley, Leo S. Morales, Jie Shen … (2010)

To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), which collected data from an Internet polling panel, and to compare PROMIS with national norms. We compared demographics and self-rated health of the PROMIS general Internet sample (N=11,796) and one of its subsamples (n=2,196) selected to approximate the joint distribution of demographics from the 2000 U.S. Census, with three national surveys and U.S. Census data. The comparisons were conducted using equivalence testing with weights created for PROMIS by raking. The weighted PROMIS population and subsample had similar demographics compared with the 2000 U.S. Census, except that the subsample had a higher percentage of people with higher education than high school. Equivalence testing shows similarity between PROMIS general population and national norms with regard to body mass index, EQ-5D health index (EuroQol group defined descriptive system of health-related quality of life states consisting of five dimensions including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), and self-rating of general health. Self-rated health of the PROMIS general population is similar to that of existing samples from the general U.S. population. The weighted PROMIS general population is more comparable to national norms than the unweighted population with regard to subject characteristics. The findings suggest that the representativeness of the Internet data is comparable to those from probability-based general population samples. Published by Elsevier Inc.

0 comments Cited 117 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys.

Ron D Hays, Honghu Liu, Arie Kapteyn (2015)

The use of Internet panels to collect survey data is increasing because it is cost-effective, enables access to large and diverse samples quickly, takes less time than traditional methods to obtain data for analysis, and the standardization of the data collection process makes studies easy to replicate. A variety of probability-based panels have been created, including Telepanel/CentERpanel, Knowledge Networks (now GFK KnowledgePanel), the American Life Panel, the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel, and the Understanding America Study panel. Despite the advantage of having a known denominator (sampling frame), the probability-based Internet panels often have low recruitment participation rates, and some have argued that there is little practical difference between opting out of a probability sample and opting into a nonprobability (convenience) Internet panel. This article provides an overview of both probability-based and convenience panels, discussing potential benefits and cautions for each method, and summarizing the approaches used to weight panel respondents in order to better represent the underlying population. Challenges of using Internet panel data are discussed, including false answers, careless responses, giving the same answer repeatedly, getting multiple surveys from the same respondent, and panelists being members of multiple panels. More is to be learned about Internet panels generally and about Web-based data collection, as well as how to evaluate data collected using mobile devices and social-media platforms.

0 comments Cited 108 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Ron D. Hays: 310-794-2294 , drhays@ucla.edu

Benjamin D. Schalet: 312-503-3640 , b-schalet@northwestern.edu

Karen L. Spritzer: 310-794-0729 , spritzer@ucla.edu

David Cella: 312-503-1086 , d-cella@northwestern.edu

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Patient Rep Outcomes

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Patient Rep Outcomes

Title: Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Publisher: Springer International Publishing (Cham )

ISSN (Electronic): 2509-8020

Publication date (Electronic): 12 September 2017

Publication date PMC-release: 12 September 2017

Publication date (Print): 2017

Volume: 1

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: 2

Affiliations

[1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9632 6718, GRID grid.19006.3e, Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, Center for Maximizing Outcomes and Research on Effectiveness (C-MORE), , University of California, ; 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA

[2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2299 3507, GRID grid.16753.36, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, ; 633 N. St Clair, 19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611 USA

Article

Publisher ID: 3

DOI: 10.1186/s41687-017-0003-8

PMC ID: 5934936

PubMed ID: 29757325

SO-VID: 9fa2af8e-d27d-48cd-b930-855e2c47915f

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

History

Date received : 28 December 2016

Date accepted : 27 July 2017

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;

Award ID: 1U2C-CA186878-01

Award Recipient : David Cella

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000049, National Institute on Aging;

Award ID: P30-AG021684

Award Recipient : Ron D. Hays

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006545, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities;

Award ID: P20-MD000182

Award Recipient : Ron D. Hays

Custom metadata

Keywords: promis®,global health,patient-reported outcomes

Data availability:

Keywords: promis®, global health, patient-reported outcomes

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 76

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 233

See all reference authors

- Version 1

Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Global Health Next Generation Network

Most cited references 7

Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel.

Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 485

Cited by 76

Most referenced authors 233