Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients

Kathleen J Yost, David T Eton, Sofia F. Garcia, David Cella

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

211 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Study Design and Setting: Participants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n = 101) assessment and a follow-up (n = 88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes. Results: Many cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63. Conclusions: This study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)507-516
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Information Systems
Fatigue
Neoplasms
Anxiety
Depression
Pain
Population
Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Clinical significance
  • Item response theory
  • Minimally important difference
  • Outcomes assessment
  • Psychometrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

@article{d5706c410d654193ad405466665907a4,
title = "Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients",
abstract = "Objective: We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Study Design and Setting: Participants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n = 101) assessment and a follow-up (n = 88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes. Results: Many cross-sectional (64{\%}) and longitudinal (73{\%}) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63. Conclusions: This study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning.",
keywords = "Cancer, Clinical significance, Item response theory, Minimally important difference, Outcomes assessment, Psychometrics",
author = "Yost, {Kathleen J} and Eton, {David T} and Garcia, {Sofia F.} and David Cella",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "507--516",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients

AU - Yost, Kathleen J

AU - Eton, David T

AU - Garcia, Sofia F.

AU - Cella, David

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Objective: We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Study Design and Setting: Participants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n = 101) assessment and a follow-up (n = 88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes. Results: Many cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63. Conclusions: This study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning.

AB - Objective: We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Study Design and Setting: Participants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n = 101) assessment and a follow-up (n = 88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes. Results: Many cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63. Conclusions: This study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning.

KW - Cancer

KW - Clinical significance

KW - Item response theory

KW - Minimally important difference

KW - Outcomes assessment

KW - Psychometrics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953292342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953292342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 507

EP - 516

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 5

ER -