4.6 Article

Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: built using item response theory

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 794-804

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.012

关键词

Quality of life; Outcome measure; Disability; Child; Adolescent; Psychometric methods

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research [1U01AR052181-01, U01AR52186]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To create self-report physical function (PF) measures for children using modern psychometric methods for item analysis as part of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Study Design and Setting: PROMIS qualitative methodology was applied to develop two PF item pools that comprised 32 mobility and 38 upper extremity items. Items were computer administered to subjects aged 8-17 years. Scale dimensionality and sources of local dependence (LD) were evaluated with factor analysis. Items were analyzed for differential item functioning (DIF) between genders. Items with LD, DIF, or low discrimination were considered for removal. Computerized adaptive testing performance was simulated, and short forms were constructed. Results: Three thousand forty-eight children (51.8% female, 40% nonwhite, and 22.7% chronically ill) participated. At least 754 respondents answered each item. Factor analytical results confirmed two dimensions of PP. Fifty-two of 70 items tested were retained. A 23-item mobility bank and a 29-item upper extremity bank resulted, and an eight-item short forms were created. The item banks have high information from the population mean to three standard deviations below. Conclusions: PROMIS pediatric PF item banks and eight-item short forms assess two dimensions, mobility, and upper extremity function and show good psychometric characteristics after large-scale testing. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据