Lee Jiseon, Lim Yeonjung, Seo Dong Gi, Lee Minji K, Schalet Benjamin D, Fischer Felix, Rose Matthias, Kang Danbee, Cho Juhee
Department of Clinical Research Design & Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Samsung Medical Center, Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Seoul, South Korea.
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2025 Mar;34(1):e70012. doi: 10.1002/mpr.70012.
This study aimed to compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety, depression, and anger item bank among Korean, US and Dutch general population.
Between December 2021 and January 2022, we surveyed representative Korean participants (N = 2699). Then we compared the mean T-scores of PROMIS anxiety, depression, and anger full items bank among Korean, US (N = 1696) and the Dutch (N = 1002) populations. Differential item-functioning (DIF) analyses were also performed. We also compared each score by age group, sex, presence of comorbidities, and general health status.
In Korean, the mean T-scores for anxiety, depression, and anger were 45.3 (standard deviation [SD] = 11.6), 48.4 (SD = 11.2), and 44.9 (SD = 12.6), respectively. Among the general population in Korea, patients aged 35-44 years and those with comorbidities had higher anxiety, depression, and anger scores. In the DIF analyses between the US and Korean populations, 28%, 32%, and 45% were flagged for uniform or non-uniform DIF in anxiety, depression and anger, respectively.
Considering the cultural differences, we recommend using a harmonized approach that includes country-specific reference values while retaining a standardized core set of items to enable cross-country comparability.
本研究旨在比较韩国、美国和荷兰普通人群中患者报告结局测量信息系统(PROMIS)焦虑、抑郁和愤怒条目库。
在2021年12月至2022年1月期间,我们对具有代表性的韩国参与者(N = 2699)进行了调查。然后我们比较了韩国、美国(N = 1696)和荷兰(N = 1002)人群中PROMIS焦虑、抑郁和愤怒完整条目库的平均T分数。还进行了差异项目功能(DIF)分析。我们还按年龄组、性别、合并症的存在情况和总体健康状况比较了每个分数。
在韩国人中,焦虑、抑郁和愤怒的平均T分数分别为45.3(标准差[SD]=11.6)、48.4(SD = 11.2)和44.9(SD = 12.6)。在韩国普通人群中,35 - 44岁的患者和患有合并症的患者焦虑、抑郁和愤怒得分更高。在美国和韩国人群之间的DIF分析中,焦虑、抑郁和愤怒的统一或非统一DIF分别有28%、32%和45%被标记。
考虑到文化差异,我们建议采用一种协调一致的方法,包括特定国家的参考值,同时保留标准化的核心条目集,以实现跨国可比性。