Cited by 423Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of the depression item bank from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in a three-month observational study

Open access

Abstract

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an NIH Roadmap initiative devoted to developing better measurement tools for assessing constructs relevant to the clinical investigation and treatment of all diseases-constructs such as pain, fatigue, emotional distress, sleep, physical functioning, and social participation. Following creation of item banks for these constructs, our priority has been to validate them, most often in short-term observational studies. We report here on a three-month prospective observational study with depressed outpatients in the early stages of a new treatment episode (with assessments at intake, one-month follow-up, and three-month follow-up). The protocol was designed to compare the psychometric properties of the PROMIS depression item bank (administered as a computerized adaptive test, CAT) with two legacy self-report instruments: the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Spitzer et al., 1999). PROMIS depression demonstrated strong convergent validity with the CESD and the PHQ-9 (with correlations in a range from .72 to .84 across all time points), as well as responsiveness to change when characterizing symptom severity in a clinical outpatient sample. Identification of patients as "recovered" varied across the measures, with the PHQ-9 being the most conservative. The use of calibrations based on models from item response theory (IRT) provides advantages for PROMIS depression both psychometrically (creating the possibility of adaptive testing, providing a broader effective range of measurement, and generating greater precision) and practically (these psychometric advantages can be achieved with fewer items-a median of 4 items administered by CAT-resulting in less patient burden).

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.jpsychires.2014.05.010

Cites

22 of 22 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

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?

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 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Choi, 2012, Vol. 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 421

Metadata

Authors
Pilkonis, P. A., Yu, L., Dodds, N. E., Johnston, K. L., Maihoefer, C. C., & Lawrence, S. M.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Pilkonis, Paul A.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
56
Pages
112-119
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976407136
Cited by
423
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
13.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ar057940-04)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR057956, U01AR057967, U01AR052186, U01-AR-057940, U01AR057936, U54AR057943, U01AR057929, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR052181, U01AR057954, U01AR057948, U54AR057926, U54AR057951)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
depression measurement, computerized adaptive testing, convergent validity, responsiveness to change, CES-D, PHQ-9, symptom severity, recovery from depression, patient-reported outcomes, outpatients
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Calibration, Computers, Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Young Adult, Self Report, Patient Outcome Assessment

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