Choi Seung W, Schalet Benjamin, Cook Karon F, Cella David
Psychometric Services, CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
Psychol Assess. 2014 Jun;26(2):513-27. doi: 10.1037/a0035768. Epub 2014 Feb 17.
Interest in measuring patient-reported outcomes has increased dramatically in recent decades. This has simultaneously produced numerous assessment options and confusion. In the case of depressive symptoms, there are many commonly used options for measuring the same or a very similar concept. Public and professional reporting of scores can be confused by multiple scale ranges, normative levels, and clinical thresholds. A common reporting metric would have great value and can be achieved when similar instruments are administered to a single sample and then linked to each other to produce cross-walk score tables (e.g., Dorans, 2007; Kolen & Brennan, 2004). Using multiple procedures based on item response theory and equipercentile methods, we produced cross-walk tables linking 3 popular "legacy" depression instruments-the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977; N = 747), the Beck Depression Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996; N = 748), and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001; N = 1,120)-to the depression metric of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS; Cella et al., 2010). The PROMIS Depression metric is centered on the U.S. general population, matching the marginal distributions of gender, age, race, and education in the 2000 U.S. census (Liu et al., 2010). The linking relationships were evaluated by resampling small subsets and estimating confidence intervals for the differences between the observed and linked PROMIS scores; in addition, PROMIS cutoff scores for depression severity were estimated to correspond with those commonly used with the legacy measures. Our results allow clinicians and researchers to retrofit existing data of 3 popular depression measures to the PROMIS Depression metric and vice versa.
近几十年来，对测量患者报告结局的兴趣急剧增加。这同时带来了众多评估选项和困惑。就抑郁症状而言，有许多常用选项来测量相同或非常相似的概念。多个量表范围、常模水平和临床阈值可能会使分数的公开和专业报告产生混淆。一个通用的报告指标将具有很大价值，当对单个样本使用相似工具并相互关联以生成交叉得分表时即可实现（例如，多兰斯，2007年；科伦和布伦南，2004年）。我们使用基于项目反应理论和等百分位方法的多种程序，生成了交叉表，将3种常用的“传统”抑郁工具——流行病学研究中心抑郁量表（拉德洛夫，1977年；样本量N = 747）、贝克抑郁量表第二版（贝克、斯泰尔和布朗，1996年；样本量N = 748）以及9项患者健康问卷（克伦克、斯皮策和威廉姆斯，2001年；样本量N = 1120）——与美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）患者报告结局测量信息系统（PROMIS；塞拉等人，2010年）的抑郁指标相联系。PROMIS抑郁指标以美国普通人群为中心，与2000年美国人口普查中的性别、年龄、种族和教育程度的边缘分布相匹配（刘等人，2010年）。通过对小子集进行重采样并估计观察到的PROMIS分数与关联分数之间差异的置信区间来评估关联关系；此外，还估计了与传统测量方法常用的抑郁严重程度对应的PROMIS临界分数。我们的结果使临床医生和研究人员能够将3种常用抑郁测量方法的现有数据转换为PROMIS抑郁指标，反之亦然。
