Jakob Bue Bjørner|M. Rose|Barbara Gandek|Arthur A. Stone|Doerte U. Junghaenel|John E. Ware
Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity
National Research Centre for the Working Environment|HealthInsight|Optum (United States)|University of Copenhagen|Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin|University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School|University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School|Stony Brook University|Stony Brook University|Science Wares (United States)|University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School
objectives test impact method administration moa score level reliability validity scales developed patient reported outcomes measurement information system promis study design setting two nonoverlapping parallel forms containing eight items three promis item banks physical function fatigue depression completed 923 adults chronic obstructive pulmonary disease depression rheumatoid arthritis randomized crossover design subjects answered one form interactive voice response ivr technology paper questionnaire pq personal digital assistant pda personal computer pc second form pc administration method equivalence evaluated analyses difference scores intraclass correlations iccs convergentdiscriminant validity results difference score analyses significant mode differences found confidence intervals within prespecified minimal important difference 02 standard deviation parallelforms reliabilities high icc 085093 one acrossmode icc significantly lower samemode icc tests validity showed differential effect moa participants preferred screen interface pq ivr conclusion found statistically clinically significant differences score levels psychometric properties ivr pq pda administration compared pc