Estimating Minimally Important Differences on PROMIS Domain Scores Ron D. Hays UCLA Department of Medicine/Division of General Internal Medicine & Health.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An Overview of Minimally Important Difference Estimation in Health-Related Quality of Life Studies Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. October 14, 2004,
Advertisements

ASSESSING RESPONSIVENESS OF HEALTH MEASUREMENTS. Link validity & reliability testing to purpose of the measure Some examples: In a diagnostic instrument,
How does PROMIS compare to other HRQOL measures? Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA, Los Angeles, CA Symposium 1077: Measurement Tools to Enhance Health- Related.
PROMIS DEVELOPMENT METHODS, ANALYSES AND APPLICATIONS Presented at the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): A Resource for.
PROMIS: The Right Place at the Right Time? David Cella, Ph.D. Department of Medical Social Sciences Northwestern University Chair, PROMIS Steering Committee.
Remaining Challenges and What to Do Next: Undiscovered Areas Ron D. Hays UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research
CHAPTER 9.1 THE BENEFITS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (PAGES )
15-minute Introduction to PROMIS Ron D. Hays, Ph.D UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research Roundtable Meeting on Measuring.
Effects of Mode and Order of Administration on Generic HRQOL Scores? Ron D. Hays, Seong Eun Kim, Karen Spritzer, and Honghu Liu UCLA 1:00-2:00 pm.
Why Patient-Reported Outcomes Are Important: Growing Implications and Applications for Rheumatologists Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine RAND.
Cross-Cultural Use of Measurements: Development of the Chinese SF-36 Health Survey Xinhua S. Ren, Ph.D. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston,
1 8/14/2015 Evaluating the Significance of Health-Related Quality of Life Change in Individual Patients Ron Hays October 8, 2004 UCLA GIM/HSR.
1 Health-Related Quality of Life Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. - UCLA Department of Medicine: Division of General Internal Medicine.
Performance of PROMIS® CATs Versus Short forms in Detecting Change Ron D. Hays October 3, 2011 International Association for Computer.
Primer on Evaluating Reliability and Validity of Multi-Item Scales Questionnaire Design and Testing Workshop October 25, 2013, 3:30-5:00pm Wilshire.
Basic Methods for Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA/RAND ISOQOL Conference on.
“A Critical Look at Health-Related Quality of Life Measures” SGIM Annual Meeting Ron D. Hays May 2, 2003 (12:30-1:30 pm)
Quality Measures for Rehabilitation: Policy, Provider and Patient Perspectives Measuring Clinical Change: Quality Indicators ACRM-ASNR Pre-Conference Institute.
Is the Minimally Important Difference Really 0.50 of a Standard Deviation? Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. June 18, 2004.
Use of Health-Related Quality of Life Measures to Assess Individual Patients July 24, 2014 (1:00 – 2:00 PDT) Kaiser Permanente Methods Webinar Series Ron.
PsO: Review of Available Assessment Instruments and Lessons from Trial Results - Part II Steve Feldman, M.D., Ph.D Professor of Dermatology, Pathology.
SAS PROC IRT July 20, 2015 RCMAR/EXPORT Methods Seminar 3-4pm Acknowledgements: - Karen L. Spritzer - NCI (1U2-CCA )
1 10/12/2015 Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. November 27, 2002 (8:30-9:30.
This Outcome Report is based on data from patients who completed a Functional Restoration Programme (FRP) at the RealHealth Treatment Centre in Coventry.
1 Assessing the Minimally Important Difference in Health-Related Quality of Life Scores Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine October 25, 2006,
EVIDENCE ABOUT DIAGNOSTIC TESTS Min H. Huang, PT, PhD, NCS.
Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Measures June 12, 2014 (1:00 – 2:00 PDT) Kaiser Methods Webinar Series Ron D.Hays, Ph.D.
Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine RAND Health Program UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
Development of Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores from PROMIS Global Items Ron D. Hays ( ) UCLA Department of Medicine
Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life
Introductory Statistics Options, Spring 2008 Stat 100: MWF, 11:00 Science Center C. Stat 100: MWF, 11:00 Science Center C. –General intro to statistical.
1 Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment as an Indicator of Quality of Care (HPM 216) Ron D. Hays April 11, 2013(8:30-11:30 am) Wilshire Blvd.
Impact of using a next button in a web-based health survey on time to complete and reliability of measurement Ron D. Hays (Rita Bode, Nan Rothrock, William.
1 Session 6 Minimally Important Differences Dave Cella Dennis Revicki Jeff Sloan David Feeny Ron Hays.
Presented By Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. April 8, 2010 (MNRS Pre-Conference Workshop) Domains of PROMIS and how they were developed Dynamic Tools to Measure Health.
1 12/3/2015 Measuring Self-Reported Health Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA GIM & HSR November 27, 2007 (9:00-10:00 am) Gonda Building (Room 1357)
1 Class 5 Additional Psychometric Characteristics: Validity and Bias, Responsiveness, Sensitivity to Change October 22, 2009 Anita L. Stewart Institute.
Item Response Theory (IRT) Models for Questionnaire Evaluation: Response to Reeve Ron D. Hays October 22, 2009, ~3:45-4:05pm
Evaluating Self-Report Data Using Psychometric Methods Ron D. Hays, PhD February 6, 2008 (3:30-6:30pm) HS 249F.
Introduction ESTIMATING THE MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE (MID) OF THE DIABETES HEALTH PROFILE (DHP-18) FOR TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITIS Brendan.
1 12/18/2015 Comprehensive Approach to Measuring Health Outcomes Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA GIM & HSR October 23, 2006 (3:15-4:45 pm) MacDonald.
Evaluating Self-Report Data Using Psychometric Methods Ron D. Hays, PhD February 8, 2006 (3:00-6:00pm) HS 249F.
Approaches for Estimating Minimally Important Differences Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. January 12, 2004 (8:50-9:10am) Minimal Clinically Important Differences in.
Overlap between Subjective Well-being and Health-related Quality of Life. 3 Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. (Alina Palimaru) November 18, 2015 (11:30-12:00 noon) Geriatric.
Measurement of Outcomes Ron D. Hays Accelerating eXcellence In translational Science (AXIS) January 17, 2013 (2:00-3:00 pm) 1720 E. 120 th Street, L.A.,
Item Response Theory Dan Mungas, Ph.D. Department of Neurology University of California, Davis.
Patient-Reported Physical Functioning Ron D. Hays November 27, 2012 (11:15-11:30) UCLA Department of Medicine MCID for Orthopaedic Devices Silver Springs,
Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Measures Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA GIM & HSR February 9, 2015 (9:00-11:50 am) HPM 214, Los Angeles, CA.
Impact of using a next button in a web-based health survey on time to complete and reliability of measurement Ron D. Hays (Rita Bode, Nan Rothrock, William.
Evaluating Multi-Item Scales Health Services Research Design (HS 225B) January 26, 2015, 1:00-3:00pm CHS.
Health-Related Quality of Life in Outcome Studies Ron D. Hays, Ph.D UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research GCRC Summer Session.
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Assessment in Outcome Studies Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA/RAND GCRC Summer Course “The.
Test-Retest Reliability of the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB) Dr. Leighton Chan, MD, MPH Chief, Rehabilitation Medicine Department.
Psychometric Evaluation of Items Ron D. Hays
NIH: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Ron D. Hays Functional Vision and Visual Function November 10, 2016, 8:55-9:15am.
Anti-TNF therapy improves hand function in rheumatoid arthritis
UCLA Department of Medicine
PROMIS-29 V2.0 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores Ron D. Hays
Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in Outcome Studies
Physical Activity Physical Activity impacts health, wellness and fitness. The rest of the presentation will cover specific information about fitness.
SF-36 domain scores at baseline and 24 weeks compared with age-matched and gender-matched normative values in the (A) AMBITION and (B) ADACTA trial populations.
Health-Related Quality of Life Measures (HS249T: Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Division.
Estimating Minimally Important Differences (MIDs)
Introduction to Psychometric Analysis of Survey Data
Health-Related Quality of Life as an indicator of Quality of Care
Evaluating the Significance of Individual Change
GIM & HSR Research Seminar: October 5, 2018
UCLA Department of Medicine
How to Measure Quality of Life
Patient-reported Outcome Measures
Presentation transcript:

Estimating Minimally Important Differences on PROMIS Domain Scores Ron D. Hays UCLA Department of Medicine/Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research and RAND PROMIS Investigator Meeting, Bethesda, MD October 5, 2010 ̃ 11:00 – 11:30 am

“Distribution-Based” Methods 2 Change in PROMIS domain score theta that is equal to a “prior” for the minimally important change –0.5*SD b = 5 –0.2*SD b = 2 Standard error of measurement (SEM) = SD b = standard deviation at baseline r xx = reliability

“Anchor-based” Estimates of MID Anchor used to classify respondents in terms of change Estimate PROMIS domain score delta for subgroup that changed by a minimally important amount on anchor 3 Since the start of the study, how would you describe the change (if any) in >?  Much better  Moderately better  A little better  No change  A little worse  Moderately worse  Much worse MID

Other Anchors Improvement in global rating item of one level x% (e.g., 50%) reduction in –Joint swelling –Joint tenderness –Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) scores 4

“Initial Validation of PROMIS Physical Function/Disability Scales in Rheumatoid Arthritis” (Fries et al.) 19 out of the 20 items in the 20-item PROMIS physical functioning short-form –“Are you able to wash your back?” excluded. Three waves of data –Baseline (n = 521) –6 months post-baseline (n = 483) –One year post-baseline (n = 472)

Retrospective Ratings of Change in RA Study Change in activity (CHG_ACTIVITY) Change in fatigue (CHG_FATIGUE) Change in pain (CHG_PAIN) –Got a lot better –Got a little better –Stayed the same –Got a little worse –Got a lot worse

SF-36 Retrospective Change Item Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now? (HT) –Much better now than one year ago –Somewhat better now than one year ago –About the same as one year ago –Somewhat worse now than one year ago –Much worse now than one year ago

Global Rating of Physical Functioning To what extent are you able to carry out your everyday physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, or moving a chair? (GLOBAL06) –Completely –Mostly –Moderately –A little –Not at all

Minutes Spent Exercising Vigorous exercise Aerobics Biking Racquet sports Swimming Other exercises

Correlations of Anchor with Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning Domain PF 2 - PF 1 PF 3 -PF 2 PF 3 -PF 1 Activity0.26 (0.29) 0.34 (0.33) Pain0.27 (0.28) 0.30 (0.30) Fatigue 0.20 (0.21) 0.23 (0.24) Overall health (0.23) Δ Global PF 0.17 (0.19) 0.20 (0.20) Δ Min. exercise 0.10 (0.07) 0.08 (0.06) =========================================== Note: Product moment correlations presented, followed by Spearman rank-order correlations (in parentheses)

Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning (W2 - W1) by Retrospective Ratings of Change (n = 463) PF 1 = (SD = 9.18); PF 2 = (SD = 9.44) F (4, 458 dfs) = 9.41, p<.0001(Activity) F (4, 457 dfs) = 4.68, p=.0010(Fatigue) F (4, 457 dfs) = 9.81, p<.0001(Pain) Activity Fatigue Pain n –Got a lot better: a 0.94 a 1.25 a ( ) –Got a little better: a 0.54 a 0.50 a ( ) –Stayed the same: a,b a,b 0.02 a,b ( ) –Got a little worse: b b,c b ( ) –Got a lot worse: c c c ( )

Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning (W2 - W1) by Change in Global PF (n = 465) F (4, 460 dfs) = 3.86, p =.0043 Global PF n –2+ levels better: 0.53 a 22 –1 level better: 0.32 a 68 –Stayed the same: a,b 273 –1 level worse: b 60 –2+ levels worse: b 42

Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning (W3 - W2) by Retrospective Rating of Change in Activity (n = 443) PF 2 = (SD = 9.24); PF 3 = (SD = 9.60) F (4, 438 dfs) = 14.98, p<.0001 (Activity) F (4, 438 dfs) = 6.32, p<.0001 (Fatigue) F (4, 437 dfs) = 11.34, p<.0001 (Pain) Activity Fatigue Pain n –Got a lot better: a 2.24 a 3.38 a ( ) –Got a little better: a,b 1.67 a,b 1.31 b ( ) –Stayed the same: 0.43 b,c 0.38 b,c 0.40 b,c ( ) –Got a little worse: c c,d c,d ( ) –Got a lot worse: d d d ( )

Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning (W3 - W2) by Change in Global PF (n = 439) PF 2 = (SD = 9.18); PF 3 = (SD = 9.44) F (4, 434 dfs) = 4.70, p = Global PF n –2+ levels better: 1.84 a 27 –1 level better: 0.54 a,b 74 –Stayed the same: 0.25 b 235 –1 level worse: b,c 77 –2+ levels worse: c 26

Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning (W3 - W1) by Retrospective Rating of Change, Overall Health (n = 451) PF 1 = (SD = 9.03); PF 3 = (SD = 9.54) F (4, 446 dfs) = 13.34, p<.0001 –Much better (n = 38): 1.26 a –Somewhat better (n = 221): 0.29 a –About the same (n = 39): b –Somewhat worse (n = 34): 1.45 a –Much worse (n = 119): b

Questions