Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 442

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

The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency

Open access
Rose, Matthias, Bjorner, Jakob B., Gandek, Barbara, Bruce, Bonnie, Fries, James F., Ware, John E.·2014·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To document the development and psychometric evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) item bank and static instruments. Study Design and Setting Items were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. 16,065 adults answered item subsets (n>2,200/item) on the Internet, with over-sampling of the chronically ill. Classical test and item response theory (IRT) methods were used to evaluate 149 PROMIS PF items plus 10 SF-36 and 20 HAQ-DI items. A graded response model was used to estimate item parameters, which were normed to a mean of 50 (SD=10) in a US general population sample. Results The final bank consists of 124 PROMIS items covering upper, central, and lower extremity functions and IADL. In simulations, a 10-item Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) eliminated floor and decreased ceiling effects, achieving higher measurement precision than any comparable-length static tool across four standard deviations of the measurement range. Improved psychometric properties transferred to the CAT’s superior ability to identify differences between age and disease groups. Conclusion The item bank provides a common metric and can improve the measurement of PF by facilitating the standardization of PRO measures and implementation of CATs for more efficient PF assessments over a larger range.

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.2013.10.024

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: 26

  1. Ware, 2000, Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales, Med Care, 38, II73, 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00011 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Rose, 2008, Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), J Clin Epidemiol, 61, 17, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bjorner, 2003, Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HITTM), Qual Life Res, 12, 913, 10.1023/A:1026163113446 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Granger, 1993, Performance profiles of the functional independence measure, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 72, 84, 10.1097/00002060-199304000-00005 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Haley, 1994, Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale, J Clin Epidemiol, 47, 671, 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90215-1 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Fisher, 1997, Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI physical functioning scales, J Outcome Meas, 1, 329
  7. Raczek, 1998, Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment, J Clin Epidemiol, 51, 1203, 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00112-7 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Wolfe, 2004, Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire, Arthritis Rheum, 50, 3296, 10.1002/art.20549 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Haley, 2004, Activity outcome measurement for postacute care, Med Care, 42, I49, 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103520.43902.6c · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ware, 2005, Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation, Rehabil Psychol, 50, 71, 10.1037/0090-5550.50.1.71 · DOI
  11. Reeve, 2007, Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Med Care, 45, S22, 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bruce, 2009, Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential, Arthritis Res Ther, 11, R191, 10.1186/ar2890 · DOI
  13. Fries, 1980, Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis, Arthritis Rheum, 23, 137, 10.1002/art.1780230202 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Liu, 2010, Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system Internet panel, J Clin Epidemiol, 63, 1169, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Rothrock, 2010, Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), J Clin Epidemiol, 63, 1195, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.012 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Masters, 1984, The essential process in a family of measurement models, Psychometrika, 49, 529, 10.1007/BF02302590 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Reckase, 1979, Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implications, J Educ Stat, 4, 207, 10.2307/1164671 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fliege, 2005, Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT), Qual Life Res, 14, 2277, 10.1007/s11136-005-6651-9 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Stout, 2002, Psychometrics: from practice to theory and back: 15 years of nonparametric multidimensional IRT, DIF/test equity, and skills diagnostic assessment, Psychometrika, 67, 485, 10.1007/BF02295128 · DOI
  20. Orlando, 2000, Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models, Appl Psychol Meas, 24, 50, 10.1177/01466216000241003 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Muraki, 1993, Information functions of the generalized partial credit model, Appl Psychol Meas, 17, 351, 10.1177/014662169301700403 · DOI
  22. Cook, 2009, Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption, Qual Life Res, 18, 447, 10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Martin, 2007, Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale, Qual Life Res, 16, 647, 10.1007/s11136-007-9193-5 · DOI
  24. Hays, 2007, Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the medical outcomes study, Med Care, 45, S32, 10.1097/01.mlr.0000246649.43232.82 · DOI
  25. Emons, 2005, Global, local, and graphical person-fit analysis using person-response functions, Psychol Methods, 10, 101, 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.101 · DOI
  26. Hays, 2013, Upper-extremity and mobility subdomains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) adult physical functioning bank, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 94, 2291, 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.014 · DOI

Cited by

See all 442

Metadata

Authors
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
516-526
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024
OpenAlex
W1964280204
Cited by
442
References
7
FWCI
22.18
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: The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024
The paper
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2014). The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024

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.