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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Development was rated inadequate because, despite patients' involvement in developing PROMIS items [69], they were not specifically involved in selecting the most relevant (sub)domains to be included in this instrument (Table 1).”
From Evidence on the measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments is largely missing in patients with low back pain: A systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [69]
Citations
Cites
SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide
Ware, J. (2003) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,424
Hesselbart, S., & Fowler, F. J. (1985) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288598 · Cited by 4,767
Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.100.3.316 · Cited by 4,601
(2000) · Cited by 4,106
Smets, E. M. A., Garssen, B., Bonke, B., & de Haes, J. C. J. M. (1995) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-o · Cited by 3,622
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., Ader, D., Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Rose, M. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55 · Cited by 3,118
Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design
Willis, G. (2004) · Cited by 1,934
The Structure of Common Mental Disorders
Krueger, R. F. (1999) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.921 · Cited by 1,881
Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934 · Cited by 1,806
Psychometric Evaluation and Calibration of Health-Related Quality of Life Item Banks
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjørner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., Revicki, D. A., Weiss, D. J., Hambleton, R. K., et al. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04 · Cited by 1,491
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hahn, 2005, Social well-being: the forgotten health status measure [abstract]., Qual Life Res, 14, 1991
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011 · Cited by 5,128
“Six phases of item development were documented: identification of existing 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 [2].”
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., Ader, D., Fries, J. F., Bruce, B., & Rose, M. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55 · Cited by 3,118
Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., Cella, D., & PROMIS Cooperative Group (2011) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191111411667 · Cited by 2,132
Psychometric Evaluation and Calibration of Health-Related Quality of Life Item Banks
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjørner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., Thissen, D., Revicki, D. A., Weiss, D. J., Hambleton, R. K., et al. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04 · Cited by 1,491
Prins, A., Bovin, M. J., Smolenski, D. J., Marx, B. P., Kimerling, R., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Kaloupek, D. G., Schnurr, P. P., Kaiser, A. P., Leyva, Y. E., et al. (2016) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3703-5 · Cited by 1,303
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.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- S12-S21
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
