Cited by 35Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research TopicsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Psychometric characteristics of daily diaries for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): a preliminary investigation

Open access
Schneider, Stefan, Choi, Seung W., Junghaenel, Doerte U., Schwartz, Joseph E., Stone, Arthur A.·2013·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose The Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) has developed assessment tools for numerous PROs, most using a 7-day recall format. We examined whether modifying the recall period for use in daily diary research would affect the psychometric characteristics of several PROMIS measures. Methods Daily versions of short-forms for three PROMIS domains (pain interference, fatigue, depression) were administered to a general population sample (n = 100) for 28 days. Analyses used multilevel item response theory (IRT) models. We examined differential item functioning (DIF) across recall periods by comparing the IRT parameters from the daily data with the PROMIS 7-day recall IRT parameters. Additionally, we examined whether the IRT parameters for day-to-day within-person changes are invariant to those for between-person (cross-sectional) differences in PROs. Results Dimensionality analyses of the daily data suggested a single dimension for each PRO domain, consistent with PROMIS instruments. One-third of the daily items showed uniform DIF when compared with PROMIS 7-day recall, but the impact of DIF on the scale level was minor. IRT parameters for within-person changes differed from between-person parameters for 3 depression items, which were more sensitive for measuring change than between-person differences, but not for pain interference and fatigue items. Notably, mean scores from daily diaries were significantly lower than the PROMIS 7-day recall norms. Conclusions The results provide initial evidence supporting the adaptation of PROMIS measures for daily diary research. However, scores from daily diaries cannot be directly interpreted on PROMIS norms established for 7-day recall.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-012-0323-3

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Daily Pain was assessed with the PROMIS pain intensity 3-item short-form which has demonstrated validity across conditions.

    “Daily Pain was assessed with the PROMIS pain intensity 3-item short-form 61,62 which has demonstrated validity across conditions63,64.”

    From Ecological momentary assessment of pain, fatigue, depressive, and cognitive symptoms reveals significant daily variability in multiple sclerosis (2017) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Methods > Measures passage says this study used a six-item daily PROMIS pain interference short-form, not a three-item pain intensity short-form. The paper also does not establish validity of the claimed instrument across conditions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [3]Liu H Cella D Gershon R Shen J Morales LS Riley W Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010 63 11 1169 1178 20688473 PMC2943555
  2. [4]Institute of Medicine Leading health indicators for healthy people 2020: Letter Report 2011 Washington, DC National Academies Press 24983065
  3. [5]Leidy NK Wilcox TK Jones PW Murray L Winnette R Howard K Development of the EXAcerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT): A Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measure Value in Health 2010 13 8 965 975 20659270
  4. [6]Jim HS Small B Faul LA Franzen J Apte S Jacobsen PB Fatigue, depression, sleep, and activity during chemotherapy: daily and intraday variation and relationships among symptom changes Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2011 42 3 321 333 21785899 PMC3432914
  5. [7]Chapman CR Donaldson GW Davis JJ Bradshaw DH Improving individual measurement of postoperative pain: The Pain Trajectory Journal of Pain 2011 12 2 257 262 21237721 PMC3052945
  6. [8]Begg A Drummond G Tiplady B Assessment of postsurgical recovery after discharge using a pen computer diary Anaesthesia 2003 58 11 1101 1105 14616597
  7. [9]Broderick JE Schneider S Schwartz JE Stone AA Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: Accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods Quality of Life Research 2010 19 8 1163 1170 20535565 PMC2940938
  8. [10]Broderick JE Schwartz JE Schneider S Stone AA Can end-of-day reports replace momentary assessment of pain and fatigue? Journal of Pain 2009 10 3 274 281 19070550 PMC2757263
  9. [11]Broderick JE Schwartz JE Vikingstad G Pribbernow M Grossman S Stone AA The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods Pain 2008 139 1 146 157 18455312 PMC2617790
  10. [12]Schwarz N Stone AA Shiffman SS Atienza A Nebeling L Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for real-time data capture The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research 2007 New York Oxford University Press 11 26
  11. [13]Winkielman P Knauper B Schwarz N Looking back at anger: Reference periods change the interpretation of emotion frequency questions Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998 75 3 719 728 9781408
  12. [14]Roesch SC Aldridge AA Stocking SN Villodas F Leung Q Bartley CE Multilevel factor analysis and structural equation modeling of daily diary coping data: Modeling trait and state variation Multivariate Behav Res 2010 45 5 767 789 21399732 PMC3049912
  13. [15]Mehta PD Neale MC People are variables too: Multilevel structural equations modeling Psychological Methods 2005 10 3 259 284 16221028
  14. [19]Lai JS Cella D Choi S Junghaenel DU Christodoulou C Gershon R How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2011 92 10 Suppl S20 S27 21958919 PMC3696589
  15. [20]Pilkonis PA Choi SW Reise SP Stover AM Riley WT Cella D Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS (R)): Depression, Anxiety, and Anger Assessment 2011 18 3 263 283 21697139 PMC3153635
  16. [22]Reeve BB Hays RD Bjorner JB Cook KF Crane PK Teresi JA Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks - Plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) Medical Care 2007 45 5 S22 S31 17443115
  17. [25]Grilli L Rampichini C Multilevel factor models for ordinal variables Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal 2007 14 1 1 25
  18. [26]Gregorich SE Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework Medical Care 2006 44 11 S78 S94 17060839 PMC1808350
  19. [27]Mellenberg GJ Contingency table models for assessing item bias Journal of Educational Statistics 1982 7 105 108
  20. [30]Stark S Chernyshenko ES Drasgow F Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy Journal of Applied Psychology 2006 91 6 1292 1306 17100485
  21. [31]Benjamini Y Hochberg Y Controlling the False Discovery Rate - a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological 1995 57 1 289 300
  22. [32]Stone AA Schwartz JE Broderick JE Shiffman SS Variability of momentary pain predicts recall of weekly pain: A consequence of the peak (or salience) memory heuristic Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2005 31 10 1340 1346 16143666
  23. [33]Schneider S Stone AA Schwartz JE Broderick JE Peak and End Effects in Patients’ Daily Recall of Pain and Fatigue: A Within-Subjects Analysis Journal of Pain 2011 12 2 228 235 20817615 PMC3012151
  24. [34]Noonan VK Cook KF Bamer AM Choi SW Kim J Amtmann D Measuring fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: creating a crosswalk between the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale and the PROMIS Fatigue Short Form Quality of Life Research 2011 22048931
  25. [35]Thissen D Varni JW Stucky BD Liu Y Irwin DE Dewalt DA Using the PedsQL 3.0 asthma module to obtain scores comparable with those of the PROMIS pediatric asthma impact scale (PAIS) Quality of Life Research 2011 20 9 1497 1505 21384264 PMC3196830
  26. [36]Gibbons LE Feldman BJ Crane HM Mugavero M Willig JH Patrick D Migrating from a legacy fixed-format measure to CAT administration: calibrating the PHQ-9 to the PROMIS depression measures Quality of Life Research 2011 20 9 1349 1357 21409516 PMC3175024
  27. [37]Ackerman TA A Didactic Explanation of Item Bias, Item Impact, and Item Validity from a Multidimensional Perspective Journal of Educational Measurement 1992 29 1 67 91
  28. [39]Cranford JA Shrout PE Iida M Rafaeli E Yip T Bolger N A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2006 32 7 917 929 16738025 PMC2414486

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, S., Choi, S. W., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Schneider, Stefan
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2012-11-23
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
1859-1869
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2106597007
Cited by
35
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR057948)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
PROMIS, daily diary, recall period, differential item functioning, item response theory, within-person change, between-person differences, pain interference, fatigue, depression, patient-reported outcomes, measurement invariance
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Information Systems, Middle Aged, Pain, Pilot Projects, Psychometrics, Mental Recall, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review