Cited by 1,199Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPain Management and Opioid UseMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference

Open access
Amtmann, Dagmar, Cook, Karon F., Jensen, Mark P., Chen, Wen-Hung, Choi, Seung, Revicki, Dennis, Cella, David, Rothrock, Nan +3 more·2010·Pain

Abstract

This paper describes the psychometric properties of the PROMIS-pain interference (PROMIS-PI) bank. An initial candidate item pool (n=644) was developed and evaluated based on the review of existing instruments, interviews with patients, and consultation with pain experts. From this pool, a candidate item bank of 56 items was selected and responses to the items were collected from large community and clinical samples. A total of 14,848 participants responded to all or a subset of candidate items. The responses were calibrated using an item response theory (IRT) model. A final 41-item bank was evaluated with respect to IRT assumptions, model fit, differential item function (DIF), precision, and construct and concurrent validity. Items of the revised bank had good fit to the IRT model (CFI and NNFI/TLI ranged from 0.974 to 0.997), and the data were strongly unidimensional (e.g., ratio of first and second eigenvalue=35). Nine items exhibited statistically significant DIF. However, adjusting for DIF had little practical impact on score estimates and the items were retained without modifying scoring. Scores provided substantial information across levels of pain; for scores in the T-score range 50-80, the reliability was equivalent to 0.96-0.99. Patterns of correlations with other health outcomes supported the construct validity of the item bank. The scores discriminated among persons with different numbers of chronic conditions, disabling conditions, levels of self-reported health, and pain intensity (p<0.0001). The results indicated that the PROMIS-PI items constitute a psychometrically sound bank. Computerized adaptive testing and short forms are available.

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.pain.2010.04.025

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Pain interference was assessed with the highly reliable PROMIS Adult Short Form: Pain Interference version 1.0.

    “PROMIS-Pain Interference measures the extent to which pain interferes with a patient’s physical, mental, emotional, and social activities in the past seven days and is highly reliable.23”

    From Mindfulness is associated with psychological health and moderates the impact of fibromyalgia (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction defines pain interference in terms of physical, mental, and social activities; Methods specifies a seven-day recall period and describes items addressing emotional aspects of pain. The Results and Discussion find PROMIS-PI bank scores highly reliable over a substantial T-score range, but less reliable at the extremes. They do not establish the reliability of the specifically named Adult Short Form version 1.0. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Although the PROMIS measures have been extensively validated, there is only modest information about their performance specifically in chronic low back pain.

    “Extensive effort has been made to validate the PROMIS measures,5, 7, 21, 51, 55, 72, 89, 92, 95 but there is modest information on their performance specifically in the context of cLBP.”

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

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [12]Choi SW Gibbons LE Crane PK Development of freeware for an iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/IRT DIF Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Conference Bethesda, MD 2008
  2. [13]Cleeland CS Measurement of Pain by Subjective Report Chapman CR Advances in Pain Research and Management New York, New York Raven Press 1989 391 403
  3. [62]West SG Finch JF Curran PJ Sem with nonnormal variables Issues and Applications Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications 1995 56 75

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., Cella, D., Rothrock, N., Keefe, F., Callahan, L., & Lai, J.-S.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • United BioSource Corporation (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Amtmann, Dagmar
Venue
Pain
Published
2010-07
Volume
150
Issue
1
Pages
173-182
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985564128
Cited by
1,199
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 135 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 114 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 10
FWCI
17.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Northwestern University (U01AR52177)
  • University of Washington (U01AR52170, U01AR52155, U01AR52171, U01AR52158)
  • University of Pittsburgh (U01AR52155, U01AR52158, U01AR52170, U01AR52171)
  • Stony Brook University (U01AR52170)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR52186, U01 AR 52177, U01AR52181, U01AR52155, U01AR052186, U01AR52171, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR52170, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR52158, U01AR052181)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
PROMIS, pain interference, item bank, patient-reported outcomes, item response theory, differential item functioning, construct validity, concurrent validity, chronic pain, computerized adaptive testing, short form
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Disability Evaluation, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Pain, Psychometrics, Quality of Life

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