Journal
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 435-444Publisher
AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/hea0000685
Keywords
spinal cord injury; traumatic brain injury; patient outcomes assessment; PROMIS (R); mode of administration
Categories
Funding
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Northwestern University) [U54AR057951, U01AR052177, U54AR057943]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (American Institutes for Research) [U54AR057926]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (State University of New York, Stony Brook) [U01AR057948, U01AR052170]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of Washington, Seattle) [U01AR057954, U01AR052171]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) [U01AR052181]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) [U01AR057956]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Stanford University) [U01AR052158]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Boston University) [U01AR057929]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of California, Los Angeles) [U01AR057936]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of Pittsburgh) [U01AR052155]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Georgetown University) [U01AR057971]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati) [U01AR057940]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (University of Maryland, Baltimore) [U01AR057967]
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund Initiative (Duke University) [U01AR052186]
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [U54-GM104941]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objective: To assess differential item functioning and observed mean differences across two modes of administration for PROMIS (R) measure scores in a sample of adults with traumatic injury. Method: Items from 7 PROMIS (R) adult measures (v1.0 Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference, Anger, Anxiety, and Depression and v2.0 Social Health-Emotional Support) were administered as fixed-length short forms in random order to a cross-sectional sample. Participants were randomly assigned to interviewer-administered (phone or in-person) or self-administered (via the Assessment Center website) conditions. The research was conducted at 5 medical rehabilitation institutions across the U.S. Participants included 277 adults with spinal cord injury (n = 148) or traumatic brain injury (n = 129). Results: DIF analyses indicated that all items were invariant to mode of administration. There was no significant effect of mode of administration for the majority of PROMIS (R) measures tested. Regarding observed scores, there were small but significant effects of mode of administration on the Emotional Support and Depression measures, with participants in the interview condition reporting better support/fewer symptoms. Conclusions: PROMIS (R) instruments demonstrated measurement equivalence across interviewer-administered and self-administered conditions. These findings are particularly important for research or clinical applications where administration of PROMIS (R) measures by independent web- or tablet-based administration is not ideal, for example with individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities or with individuals who lack computer and/or Internet access. PROMIS (R) v1.0 Depression and PROMIS (R) v2.0 Emotional Support scores displayed a tendency toward social desirability that should be considered when these measures are interviewer-administered.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available