Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 446

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Liu, Honghu, Cella, David, Gershon, Richard, Shen, Jie, Morales, Leo S., Riley, William, Hays, Ron D.·2010·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective 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. Study Design and Settings We compared demographics and self-rated health of the PROMIS general Internet sample (N=11,796) and a sub-sample of it (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. Results The weighted PROMIS population and sub-sample had similar demographics compared to the 2000 U.S. Census except that the sub-sample had a higher percentage of people with more 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, and self-rating of general health. Conclusion 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 representativeness of the Internet data is comparable to those from probability-based general population samples.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Wyatt, 2000, When to use web-based surveys, J Am Med Inform Assoc, 7, 426, 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070426 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bell, 2006, Can you ask that over the telephone? Conducting sensitive and controversial research using random-digit dialing, Med Law, 25, 59
  3. Strickland, 2003, Measurement issues related to data collection on the World Wide Web, Adv Nurs Sci, 26, 246, 10.1097/00012272-200310000-00003 · DOI
  4. Birnbaum, 2004, Human research and data collection via the Internet, Annu Rev Psychol, 55, 803, 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Schonlau, 2004, Will Web surveys ever become part of mainstream research?, J Med Internet Res, 6, e31, 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e31 · DOI
  6. Leece, 2004, Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2), J Med Internet Res, 6, e30, 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e30 · DOI
  7. Roster, 2004, A comparison of response characteristics from Web and telephone surveys, Int J Market Res, 46, 359, 10.1177/147078530404600301 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Buchanan, 1999, Research on the Internet: validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale, Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput, 31, 565, 10.3758/BF03200736 · DOI
  9. Senior, 1999, An investigation into the perception of dominance from schematic faces: a study using the World-Wide Web, Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput, 31, 341, 10.3758/BF03207730 · DOI
  10. Krantz, 1997, Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness, Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput, 29, 264, 10.3758/BF03204824 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Nathanson, 1999, Windsurfing injuries: results of a paper- and Internet-based survey, Wilderness Environ Med, 10, 218, 10.1580/1080-6032(1999)010[0218:WIROAP]2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  12. Davis, 1999, Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: comparison with traditional methods, Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput, 31, 572, 10.3758/BF03200737 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Raat, 2007, Feasibility, reliability, and validity of adolescent health status measurement by the Child Health Questionnaire Child Form (CHQ-CF): Internet administration compared with the standard paper version, Qual Life Res, 16, 675, 10.1007/s11136-006-9157-1 · DOI
  14. Schillewaert, 2005, Comparing response distributions of offline and online data collection methods, Int J Market Res, 47, 163, 10.1177/147078530504700203 · DOI
  15. Kalton, 2003, Weighting methods, J Official Stat, 19, 81
  16. Kalton, 1986, The treatment of missing survey data, Survey Methodol, 12, 1
  17. Little, 1991, Models for contingency tables with known margins when target and sampled populations differ, J Am Stat Assoc, 86, 87, 10.2307/2289718 · doi:10.2307/2289718
  18. Rosenbaum, 1983, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika, 70, 41, 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Rosenbaum, 1987, Model-based direct adjustment, J Am Stat Assoc, 82, 387, 10.2307/2289440 · DOI
  20. Duffy, 2005, Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys, Int J Market Res, 47, 615, 10.1177/147078530504700602 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Izrael D, Hoaglin DC, Battaglia MP. A SAS macro for balancing a weighted sample. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Citeseer; 2000. p. 1350–55.
  22. Izrael D, Hoaglin DC, Battaglia MP. To Rake or Not To Rake Is Not the Question Anymore with the Enhanced Raking Macro. In: May 2004 SUGI Conference, Montreal, Canada; 2004. p. 207–29.
  23. Shaw, 2005, US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model, Med Care, 43, 203, 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Barker, 2002, Assessing equivalence: an alternative to the use of difference tests for measuring disparities in vaccination coverage, Am J Epidemiol, 156, 1056, 10.1093/aje/kwf149 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Barker, 2001, Equivalence testing for binomial random variables: which test to use?, Am Stat, 55, 279, 10.1198/000313001753272213 · DOI
  26. Berger, 1996, Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests and equivalence, Statist Sci, 11, 283, 10.1214/ss/1032280304 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hays, 2005, Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures, COPD J Chronic Obstructive Pulm Dis, 2, 63, 10.1081/COPD-200050663 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 446

Metadata

Authors
Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., & Hays, R. D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
63
Issue
11
Pages
1169-1178
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021
OpenAlex
W2075519646
Cited by
446
References
7
FWCI
46.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021
The paper
Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., & Hays, R. D. (2010). Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.