CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 719Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and ValidationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of Item Candidates: The PROMIS Qualitative Item Review

Open access
DeWalt, Darren A., Rothrock, Nan, Yount, Susan, Stone, Arthur A.·2007·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2PMC PMC2810630
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One of the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) network's primary goals is the development of a comprehensive item bank for patient-reported outcomes of chronic diseases. For its first set of item banks, PROMIS chose to focus on pain, fatigue, emotional distress, physical function, and social function. An essential step for the development of an item pool is the identification, evaluation, and revision of extant questionnaire items for the core item pool. In this work, we also describe the systematic process wherein items are classified for subsequent statistical processing by the PROMIS investigators. Six phases of item development are documented: identification of extant items, item classification and selection, item review and revision, focus group input on domain coverage, cognitive interviews with individual items, and final revision before field testing. Identification of items refers to the systematic search for existing items in currently available scales. Expert item review and revision was conducted by trained professionals who reviewed the wording of each item and revised as appropriate for conventions adopted by the PROMIS network. Focus groups were used to confirm domain definitions and to identify new areas of item development for future PROMIS item banks. Cognitive interviews were used to examine individual items. Items successfully screened through this process were sent to field testing and will be subjected to innovative scale construction procedures.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hahn, 2005, Social well-being: the forgotten health status measure [abstract]., Qual Life Res, 14, 1991

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 719

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
DeWalt, Darren A.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2007-05
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
S12-S21
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2
PMC
PMC2810630
OpenAlex
W2130986983
Cited by
719
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 32
FWCI
25.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR052181)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
PROMIS, item bank development, patient-reported outcomes, chronic disease, item selection, test item revision, cognitive interviewing, focus groups, pain, fatigue, emotional distress, physical function, social function, item classification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Information Systems, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Disclosure, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Focus Groups

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