The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and validation of an interpretive guide for PROMIS scores
Open accessAbstract
Background: Accurate score interpretation is required for the appropriate use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice. Objective: To create and evaluate figures (T-score Maps) to facilitate the interpretation of scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. Methods: For 21 PROMIS® short forms, item-level information was used to predict the most probable responses to items for the range of possible scores on each short form. Predicted responses were then “mapped” graphically along the range of possible scores. In a previously conducted longitudinal study, 1594 adult participants with chronic conditions (e.g., multiple sclerosis) responded to four items each of a subset of these PROMIS short forms. Participants’ responses to these items were compared to those predicted by the T-score Maps. Difference scores were calculated between observed and predicted scores, and Spearman correlations were calculated. Results: We constructed T-score Maps for 21 PROMIS short forms for adults and pediatric self- and parent-proxy report. For the clinical population, participants’ actual responses were strongly correlated with their predicted responses (r = 0.762 to 0.950). The majority of predicted responses exactly matched observed responses (range 69.5% to 85.3%). Conclusion: Results support the validity of the predicted responses used to construct T-score Maps. T-score Maps are ready to be tested as interpretation aids in a variety of applications.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
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
Self-citationBasch, E., Deal, A. M., Kris, M. G., Scher, H. I., Hudis, C. A., Sabbatini, P., Rogak, L., Bennett, A. V., Dueck, A. C., Atkinson, T. M., et al. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.63.0830 · Cited by 2,593
Evaluation of Item Candidates: The PROMIS Qualitative Item Review
DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2 · Cited by 719
Irwin, D. E., Varni, J. W., Yeatts, K., & DeWalt, D. A. (2009) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-3 · Cited by 290
Bringing PROMIS to practice: Brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care
Wagner, L. I., Schink, J., Bass, M., Patel, S., Diaz, M. V., Rothrock, N., Pearman, T., Gershon, R., Penedo, F. J., Rosen, S., et al. (2015) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.29104 · Cited by 233
Self-citationCella, D., Choi, S., Garcia, S., Cook, K. F., Rosenbloom, S., Lai, J.-S., Tatum, D. S., & Gershon, R. (2014) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0732-6 · Cited by 190
Self-citation
Cited by
Gendler, Y., & Blau, A. (2022) · Children · doi:10.3390/children9050735 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Rothrock, N. E., Amtmann, D., & Cook, K. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
- Published
- 2020-02-28
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-16
- ISSN
- 2509-8020 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3012568535
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 12.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and validation of an interpretive guide for PROMIS scores. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s41687-020-0181-7
- The paper
- Rothrock, N. E., Amtmann, D., & Cook, K. F. (2020). Development and validation of an interpretive guide for PROMIS scores. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-0181-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.