Psychometric evaluation of an Italian custom 4-item short form of the PROMIS anxiety item bank in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an item response theory analysis.
Anxiety
Graded response model
Inflammatory bowel disease
Item response theory
PROMIS
Psoriasis
Psychometrics
Quality of life
Rheumatoid arthritis
Scale validation
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
29
05
2020
accepted:
10
08
2021
entrez:
11
11
2021
pubmed:
12
11
2021
medline:
12
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There has recently been growing interest in the roles of inflammation in contributing to the development of anxiety in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Patient-reported outcome measures can facilitate the assessment of physical and psychological functioning. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is a set of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) that cover physical appearance, mental health, and social health. The PROMIS has been built through an Item Response Theory approach (IRT), a model-based measurement in which trait level estimates depend on both persons' responses and on the properties of the items that were administered. The aim of this study is to test the psychometric properties of an Italian custom four-item Short Form of the PROMIS Anxiety item bank in a cohort of outpatients with IMIDs. We selected four items from the Italian standard Short Form Anxiety 8a and administered them to consecutive outpatients affected by Inflammatory Bowel disease ( Taken together, Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Factor analysis suggest that the unidimensionality assumption of the instrument holds. The instrument has excellent reliability from a Classical Theory of Test (CTT) standpoint (Cronbach's α = 0.93, McDonald's ω = 0.92). The 2PL Graded Response Model (GRM) model provided showed a better goodness of fit as compared to the 1PL GRM model, and local independence assumption appears to be met overall. We did not find signs of differential item functioning (DIF) for age and gender, but evidence for uniform (but not non-uniform) DIF was found in three out of four items for the patient The Italian custom four-item short form from the PROMIS anxiety form 8a shows acceptable psychometric properties both from a CTT and an IRT standpoint. The Test Reliability Curve shows that this instrument is mostly informative for people with higher levels of anxiety, making it particularly suitable for clinical populations such as IMID patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There has recently been growing interest in the roles of inflammation in contributing to the development of anxiety in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Patient-reported outcome measures can facilitate the assessment of physical and psychological functioning. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is a set of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) that cover physical appearance, mental health, and social health. The PROMIS has been built through an Item Response Theory approach (IRT), a model-based measurement in which trait level estimates depend on both persons' responses and on the properties of the items that were administered. The aim of this study is to test the psychometric properties of an Italian custom four-item Short Form of the PROMIS Anxiety item bank in a cohort of outpatients with IMIDs.
METHODS
METHODS
We selected four items from the Italian standard Short Form Anxiety 8a and administered them to consecutive outpatients affected by Inflammatory Bowel disease (
RESULTS
RESULTS
Taken together, Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Factor analysis suggest that the unidimensionality assumption of the instrument holds. The instrument has excellent reliability from a Classical Theory of Test (CTT) standpoint (Cronbach's α = 0.93, McDonald's ω = 0.92). The 2PL Graded Response Model (GRM) model provided showed a better goodness of fit as compared to the 1PL GRM model, and local independence assumption appears to be met overall. We did not find signs of differential item functioning (DIF) for age and gender, but evidence for uniform (but not non-uniform) DIF was found in three out of four items for the patient
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Italian custom four-item short form from the PROMIS anxiety form 8a shows acceptable psychometric properties both from a CTT and an IRT standpoint. The Test Reliability Curve shows that this instrument is mostly informative for people with higher levels of anxiety, making it particularly suitable for clinical populations such as IMID patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34760342
doi: 10.7717/peerj.12100
pii: 12100
pmc: PMC8556715
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e12100Informations de copyright
© 2021 Liuzza et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Marco Tullio Liuzza is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Références
Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2013 May;66(2):245-76
pubmed: 22642552
J Psychosom Res. 2010 Jun;68(6):545-51
pubmed: 20488271
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1179-94
pubmed: 20685078
Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Nov;66 Suppl 3:iii61-4
pubmed: 17934099
Arch Dermatol Res. 2019 Jul;311(5):351-360
pubmed: 30868221
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-S11
pubmed: 17443116
Eur Psychiatry. 2008 Sep;23(6):421-9
pubmed: 18504118
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Jan 20;56(1):
pubmed: 31968710
Eur Heart J. 2006 Dec;27(23):2763-74
pubmed: 17082208
Postgrad Med J. 2007 Apr;83(978):251-60
pubmed: 17403952
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014 Mar;20(3):545-52
pubmed: 24407484
Psychosom Med. 2009 Feb;71(2):171-86
pubmed: 19188531
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21(3 Suppl 29):S42-6
pubmed: 12889222
Psychiatr Danub. 2014 Sep;26(3):288-90
pubmed: 25191779
Res Nurs Health. 2017 Oct;40(5):424-434
pubmed: 28833284
Lancet. 1980 Mar 8;1(8167):514
pubmed: 6102236
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Jan;68(1):18-24
pubmed: 18625618
J Rheumatol. 1996 Aug;23(8):1407-17
pubmed: 8856621
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2335-2348
pubmed: 27690741
Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):851-8
pubmed: 17826170
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Nov;28(10):536-42
pubmed: 25390615
J Psychosom Res. 2015 Sep;79(3):175-84
pubmed: 25935351
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Dec;68(12):1827-32
pubmed: 19054820
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Feb;78(2):350-65
pubmed: 10707340
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2625-36
pubmed: 16142705
Psoriasis (Auckl). 2018 Oct 08;8:65-74
pubmed: 30324088
Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 Jan;313(1):17-24
pubmed: 32270322
N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 8;353(23):2462-76
pubmed: 16339095
Int J Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar;23(3):302-308
pubmed: 31908153
J Crohns Colitis. 2017 Mar 1;11(suppl_2):S576-S585
pubmed: 27797917
Assessment. 2011 Sep;18(3):263-83
pubmed: 21697139
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0138543
pubmed: 26379233
Psychol Med. 2004 Aug;34(6):1083-92
pubmed: 15554578
Neurology. 2019 Jan 11;:
pubmed: 30635487
Br J Psychiatry. 1994 Nov;165(5):593-8
pubmed: 7866674
Pain. 2009 Nov;146(1-2):158-69
pubmed: 19683873
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 4;53:23-34
pubmed: 24468642
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1635-44
pubmed: 26646807
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008 Sep-Oct;30(5):414-20
pubmed: 18774424