4.5 Article

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

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 1311-1321

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5

Keywords

Content validity; Conceptual framework; Domain definition; Item response theory

Funding

  1. Northwestern University, PI [U01AR52177]
  2. Duke University, PI [U01AR52186]
  3. University of North Carolina, PI [U01AR52181]
  4. University of Pittsburgh, PI [U01AR52155]
  5. Stanford University, PI [U01AR52158]
  6. Stony Brook University, PI [U01AR52170]
  7. University of Washington, PI [U01AR52171]
  8. NIH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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. 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. 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. 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available