Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T18:18:11.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solving the Tower of Babel Problem for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Comments on: Linking Scores with Patient-Reported Health Outcome Instruments: A Validation Study and Comparison of Three Linking Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Jakob Bue BjornerOpen the ORCID record for Jakob Bue Bjorner[Opens in a new window]
Jakob Bue Bjorner*
Affiliation:
QualityMetric Incorporated, LLCUniversity of CopenhagenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment
*
Correspondence should be made to Jakob Bue Bjorner, QualityMetric Incorporated, LLC, 1301 Atwood Avenue, Suite 311N, Johnston, RI 02919, USA. Email: jbjorner@qualitymetric.com
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The PROsetta Stone Project, summarized in this issue by Schalet et al. (Psychometrika 86, 2021), is a major step forward in enabling comparability between different patient-reported outcomes measures. Schalet et al. clearly describe the psychometric methods used in the PROsetta Stone project and other projects from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): linking based on unidimensional item response theory (IRT), equipercentile linking, and calibrated projection based on multidimensional IRT. Analyses in a validation data set and simulation studies provide strong support that the linking methods are robust when basic assumptions are fulfilled. The links already established will be of great value to the field, and the methodology described by Schalet et al. will hopefully inspire the next series of linking studies. Among potential improvements that should be considered by new studies are: (1) a thorough evaluation of the content of the measures to be linked to better guide the evaluation of measurement assumptions, (2) improvements in the design of linking studies such as selection of the optimal sample to provide data in the score ranges where linking precision is most critical and using counterbalanced designs to control for order effects. Finally, it may be useful to consider how the linking algorithms are used in subsequent data analyses. Analytic strategies based on plausible values or latent regression IRT models may be preferable to the simple transformation of scores from one patient at the time.

Keywords

linkingequatingitem response theorypatient-reported outcomesdepression

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bjorner, JB, Kosinski, M, Ware, JE Jr Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Quality of Life Research, (2003). 12 (8 981 1002Google Scholar
Bjorner, JB, Rose, M, Gandek, B, Stone, AA, Junghaenel, DU, Ware, JE Jr Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, (2014). 67 (1 108 113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, SW, Schalet, B, Cook, KF, Cella, D Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment, (2014). 26 (2 513 527CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DSM-IV-TR., A.P.A. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text rev). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Dorans, NJ Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, (2004). 28 (4 227 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, HF, Rose, M Scoring depression on a common metric: A comparison of EAP estimation, plausible value imputation, and full Bayesian IRT modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, (2019). 54 (1 85 99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzapfel, N, Müller-Tasch, T, Wild, B, Jünger, J, Zugck, C, Remppis, A, Löwe, B Depression profile in patients with and without chronic heart failure. Journal of Affective Disorders, (2008). 105 (1–3 53 62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katzan, IL, Fan, Y, Griffith, SD, Crane, PK, Thompson, NR, Cella, D Scale linking to enable patient-reported outcome performance measures assessed with different patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, (2017). 20 (8 1143 1149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J, Chung, H, Askew, RL, Park, R, Jones, SMW, Cook, KF, Amtmann, D Translating CESD-20 and PHQ-9 scores to PROMIS depression. Assessment, (2017). 24 (3 300 307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolen, ML, Brennan, RLTest equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices, (2014). 3New York, NY: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, (2001). 16 (9 606 613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mislevy, RJ Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, (1991). 56, 177 196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mor, V, Guadagnoli, E Quality of life measurement: A psychometric tower of Babel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, (1988). 41 (11 1055 1058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlando, M, Sherbourne, CD, Thissen, D Summed-score linking using item response theory: Application to depression measurement. Psychological Assessment, (2000). 12 (3 354 359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., Cella, D., & PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalet, B. D., Lim, S., Cella, D., & Choi, S. W. (2021). Linking scores with patient-reported health outcome instruments: A validation study and comparison of three linking methods. Psychometrika, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Knippenberg, F. C., & de Haes, J. C. (1988). Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: Psychometric properties of instruments. [Review]. J.Clin.Epidemiol., 41 (11), 1043–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed