Cited by 290Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and ValidationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study

Open access
Irwin, Debra E, Varni, James W, Yeatts, Karin, DeWalt, Darren A·2009·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in health care has seen greater use in recent years, and methods to improve the reliability and validity of PRO instruments are advancing. This paper discusses the cognitive interviewing procedures employed by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatrics group for the purpose of developing a dynamic, electronic item bank for field testing with children and adolescents using novel computer technology. The primary objective of this study was to conduct cognitive interviews with children and adolescents to gain feedback on items measuring physical functioning, emotional health, social health, fatigue, pain, and asthma-specific symptoms. METHODS: A total of 88 cognitive interviews were conducted with 77 children and adolescents across two sites on 318 items. From this initial item bank, 25 items were deleted and 35 were revised and underwent a second round of cognitive interviews. A total of 293 items were retained for field testing. RESULTS: Children as young as 8 years of age were able to comprehend the majority of items, response options, directions, recall period, and identify problems with language that was difficult for them to understand. Cognitive interviews indicated issues with item comprehension on several items which led to alternative wording for these items. CONCLUSION: Children ages 8-17 years were able to comprehend most item stems and response options in the present study. Field testing with the resulting items and response options is presently being conducted as part of the PROMIS Pediatric Item Bank development process.

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 · 10.1186/1477-7525-7-3

Cites

20 of 20 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Irwin, D. E., Varni, J. W., Yeatts, K., & DeWalt, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
Irwin, Debra E
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published
2009-01-23
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
3-3
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2165452399
Cited by
290
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
FWCI
15.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) (submittedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052181)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
cognitive interviewing, PROMIS, patient-reported outcomes, children and adolescents, item comprehension, item wording, physical function, emotional well-being, social health, fatigue, pain, asthma symptoms
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Cognition, Female, Health Status, Humans, Information Systems, Interviews as Topic, Male, Pediatrics, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Databases as Topic

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