Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference

Abstract

This paper describes the psychometric properties of the PROMIS-pain interference (PROMIS-PI) bank. An initial candidate item pool (n=644) was developed and evaluated based on the review of existing instruments, interviews with patients, and consultation with pain experts. From this pool, a candidate item bank of 56 items was selected and responses to the items were collected from large community and clinical samples. A total of 14,848 participants responded to all or a subset of candidate items. The responses were calibrated using an item response theory (IRT) model. A final 41-item bank was evaluated with respect to IRT assumptions, model fit, differential item function (DIF), precision, and construct and concurrent validity. Items of the revised bank had good fit to the IRT model (CFI and NNFI/TLI ranged from 0.974 to 0.997), and the data were strongly unidimensional (e.g., ratio of first and second eigenvalue=35). Nine items exhibited statistically significant DIF. However, adjusting for DIF had little practical impact on score estimates and the items were retained without modifying scoring. Scores provided substantial information across levels of pain; for scores in the T-score range 50-80, the reliability was equivalent to 0.96-0.99. Patterns of correlations with other health outcomes supported the construct validity of the item bank. The scores discriminated among persons with different numbers of chronic conditions, disabling conditions, levels of self-reported health, and pain intensity (p<0.0001). The results indicated that the PROMIS-PI items constitute a psychometrically sound bank. Computerized adaptive testing and short forms are available.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Statement: None of the authors of this paper have any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise. The item bank was created using NIH funding and it is free and publicly available. Some of the authors have received funding from pharmaceutical companies and/or industry in past, but this funding does not create a conflict of interest with respect to the work covered in this paper.

Copyright 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1. Distribution of PROMIS-Pain Interference T-Scores by Sample (T-Scores Have a Mean of 50 and a Standard Deviation (SD) of 10)

Figure 2. Information and Reliability Associated with Pain Impact Items Compared to Distribution of Pain Impact T-Scores in the Combined Samples