Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE)

Minji K Lee, Benjamin D Schalet, David Cella, Kathleen J Yost, Amylou C Dueck, Paul J Novotny, Jeff A Sloan, Minji K Lee, Benjamin D Schalet, David Cella, Kathleen J Yost, Amylou C Dueck, Paul J Novotny, Jeff A Sloan

Abstract

Background: Researchers and clinicians studying symptoms experienced by people with cancer must choose from various scales. It would be useful to know how the scores on one measure translate to another.

Methods: Using item response theory (IRT) with the single-group design, in which the same sample answers all measures, we produced crosswalk tables linking five 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and 15 items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE, scored on a 1-5 scale) to the T-Score metric of six different scales from the NIH Patient reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). The constructs, for which we conducted linking, include emotional distress-anxiety, emotional distress-depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference. We tested the IRT linking assumption of construct similarity between measures by comparing item content and testing unidimensionality of item sets comprising each construct. We also investigated the correlation of the measures to be linked and, by inspecting standardized mean differences, whether the linkage is invariant across age and gender subgroups. For measures that satisfied the assumptions, we conducted linking.

Results: In general, an NRS score of 0 corresponded to about 38.2 on the PROMIS T-Score scale (mean = 50; SD = 10); whereas an NRS score of 10 corresponded to a PROMIS T-Score of approximately 72.7. Similarly, the lowest/best score of 1 on PRO-CTCAE corresponded to 39.8 on T-score scale and the highest/worst score of 5 corresponded to 72.0.

Conclusion: We produced robust linking between single item symptom measures and PROMIS short forms.

Keywords: Linking; NRS; PRO-CTCAE; PROMIS.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest to report.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Standardized Mean Differences by Gender and Age (

Fig. 2

Comparison of Test Characteristic Curves…

Fig. 2

Comparison of Test Characteristic Curves in NRS Anxiety scale and the Difference in…

Fig. 2
Comparison of Test Characteristic Curves in NRS Anxiety scale and the Difference in Raw Score Values across the Scale between Concurrent Calibration with Linking Constants and Fixed Calibration
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of Test Characteristic Curves in NRS Anxiety scale and the Difference in Raw Score Values across the Scale between Concurrent Calibration with Linking Constants and Fixed Calibration

References

    1. Basch E, et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4249–4255. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.5967.
    1. Buchanan DR, et al. Research-design issues in cancer-symptom-management trials using complementary and alternative medicine: Lessons from the National Cancer Institute Community clinical oncology program experience. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(27):6682–6689. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.10.728.
    1. Ahmad F, et al. Single item measures of self-rated mental health: A scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:398. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-398.
    1. Locke DE, et al. Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2007;34(6):628–638. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.01.016.
    1. Butt Z, et al. Use of a single-item screening tool to detect clinically significant fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia in ambulatory cancer practice. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2008;35(1):20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.02.040.
    1. Choi SW, et al. Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychol Assess. 2014;26(2):513–527. doi: 10.1037/a0035768.
    1. Kaat AJ, et al. Expanding a common metric for depression reporting: Linking two scales to PROMIS((R)) depression. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(5):1119–1128. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1450-z.
    1. Schalet BD, et al. Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: Linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS anxiety. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(1):88–96. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.11.006.
    1. Cook KF, et al. Establishing a common metric for self-reported pain: Linking BPI pain interference and SF-36 bodily pain subscale scores to the PROMIS pain interference metric. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2305–2318. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0987-6.
    1. Schalet BD, et al. Establishing a common metric for physical function: Linking the HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF subscale to PROMIS((R)) physical function. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(10):1517–1523. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3360-0.
    1. Lai JS, et al. Linking fatigue measures on a common reporting metric. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;48(4):639–648. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.12.236.
    1. Dorans NJ. Equating, concordance, and expectation. Appl Psychol Meas. 2004;28:227–246. doi: 10.1177/0146621604265031.
    1. Haebara T. Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Jpn Psychol Res. 1980;22:144–149. doi: 10.4992/psycholres1954.22.144.
    1. Stocking ML, Lord FM. Developing a common metric in item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 1983;7:201–210. doi: 10.1177/014662168300700208.
    1. Pilkonis PA, et al. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS(R)): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment. 2011;18(3):263–283. doi: 10.1177/1073191111411667.
    1. Choi SW, Gibbons LE, Crane PK. lordif: Logistic ordinal regression differential item functioning using IRT. R package version 0.3–3. 2016.
    1. Cai L. flexMIRT version 2: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [Computer software] Chapel Hill: Vector Psychometric Group; 2013.
    1. Noonan VK, et al. Measuring fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: Creating a crosswalk between the modified fatigue impact scale and the PROMIS fatigue short form. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1123–1133. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0040-3.
    1. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
    1. Mueller ROH, R. O . Best practices in structural equation modeling. In: Osborne J, editor. Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2001. pp. 488–508.
    1. McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 1999.
    1. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle's β, and Mcdonald’s ωh, their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–133. doi: 10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.
    1. Revelle W. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston: Northwestern University; 2016.
    1. Schmid JJ, Leiman JM. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika. 1957;22:53–61. doi: 10.1007/BF02289209.
    1. Reise SP, Scheines R, Widaman KF, Haviland MG. Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013;73:5–26. doi: 10.1177/0013164412449831.
    1. Lord FM, Wingersky MS. Comparison of IRT true-score and equipercentile observed-score "equatings". Appl Psychol Meas. 1984;8:453–461. doi: 10.1177/014662168400800409.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit