Using item banks to construct measures of patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: investigator perceptions

Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27715, USA.
Clinical Trials (Impact Factor: 1.93). 02/2008; 5(6):575-86. DOI: 10.1177/1740774508098414
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Item response theory (IRT) promises more sensitive and efficient measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) than traditional approaches; however, the selection and use of PRO measures from IRT-based item banks differ from current methods of using PRO measures.
To anticipate barriers to the adoption of IRT item banks into clinical trials.
We conducted semistructured telephone or in-person interviews with 42 clinical researchers who published results from clinical trials in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, or other leading clinical journals from July 2005 through May 2006. Interviews included a brief tutorial on IRT item banks.
After the tutorial, 39 of 42 participants understood the novel products available from an IRT item bank, namely customized short forms and computerized adaptive testing. Most participants (38/42) thought that item banks could be useful in their clinical trials, but they mentioned several potential barriers to adoption, including economic and logistical constraints, concerns about whether item banks are better than current PRO measures, concerns about how to convince study personnel or statisticians to use item banks, concerns about FDA or sponsor acceptance, and the lack of availability of item banks validated in specific disease populations.
Selection bias might have led to more positive responses to the concept of item banks in clinical trials.
Clinical investigators are open to a new method of PRO measurement offered in IRT item banks, but bank developers must address investigator and stakeholder concerns before widespread adoption can be expected.

Download full-text


Available from: Kevin P Weinfurt, Sep 27, 2015
20 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A new mathematical model of the myelinated nerve fiber was applied to the study of conduction behavior. This model represents the myelinated nerve fiber as a multiaxial equivalent electric circuit incorporating separate intra-axonal, periaxonal and extra-axonal longitudinal conductive pathways with independent representations of the myelin sheath versus the underlying axolemmal membrane. A detailed anatomical representation of the node is included, with the periaxonal space extending to the nodal compartment. Both amphibian and mammalian nerve fibers were modeled. Model results show a physiological conduction velocity of 57.6 m/s for 17.5-μm-diameter mammalian nerve fiber at 37°C with a change in conduction velocity versus temperature closely correlated to experimental findings. The periaxonal space width and the axon radius in the paranodal region are shown to have a strong influence on conduction velocity
    Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1989. Images of the Twenty-First Century., Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in; 12/1989
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To create self-report physical function (PF) measures for children using modern psychometric methods for item analysis as part of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). PROMIS qualitative methodology was applied to develop two PF item pools that comprised 32 mobility and 38 upper extremity items. Items were computer administered to subjects aged 8-17 years. Scale dimensionality and sources of local dependence (LD) were evaluated with factor analysis. Items were analyzed for differential item functioning (DIF) between genders. Items with LD, DIF, or low discrimination were considered for removal. Computerized adaptive testing performance was simulated, and short forms were constructed. Three thousand forty-eight children (51.8% female, 40% nonwhite, and 22.7% chronically ill) participated. At least 754 respondents answered each item. Factor analytical results confirmed two dimensions of PF. Fifty-two of 70 items tested were retained. A 23-item mobility bank and a 29-item upper extremity bank resulted, and an eight-item short forms were created. The item banks have high information from the population mean to three standard deviations below. PROMIS pediatric PF item banks and eight-item short forms assess two dimensions, mobility, and upper extremity function and show good psychometric characteristics after large-scale testing.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 02/2011; 64(7):794-804. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.012 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To fully capture the impact of a disease or condition on the lives of individuals, patient-reported outcomes are considered a necessary component of health measurement in rehabilitation. This article provides an overview of the involvement of rehabilitation stakeholders in the development of sound measurement tools for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), a National Institutes of Health-funded initiative. PROMIS is a multisite study that included many different populations. We focus on the involvement of people with several chronic conditions, including multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and arthritis, in the development of PROMIS measures. We describe both qualitative and quantitative methods used, including expert panels, focus groups, cognitive interviews, and item response theory modeling, which resulted in enhanced utility of PROMIS measures in rehabilitation. Measures include a set of global health items and 12 item banks representing 6 domains. Scores are reported in the T score metric (mean ± SD, 50 ± 10) and centered on mean values from the U.S. general population. The PROMIS item banks measure quality of life and symptoms of people with chronic conditions and have the potential to enhance research and clinical practice by facilitating comparisons of scores across domains and populations.
    Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 10/2011; 92(10 Suppl):S12-9. DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.04.025 · 2.57 Impact Factor
Show more