Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29800306›Full record

ArticleJournal of pediatric psychology2018

PROMIS Peer Relationships Short Form: How Well Does Self-Report Correlate With Data From Peers?

Katie A Devine, Victoria W Willard, Matthew C Hocking, Jerod L Stapleton, David Rotter, William M Bukowski, Robert B Noll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Katie A DevineDepartment of Medicine, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Victoria W WillardDepartment of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
Matthew C HockingDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania and The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Jerod L StapletonDepartment of Medicine, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
David RotterDepartment of Medicine, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
William M BukowskiDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University.
Robert B NollDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh.

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI STEVEN K. LIBUTTI · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
A Novel Mobile Health Fitness Program for AYA Childhood Cancer SurvivorsK07CA174728 · NCI · RBHS -CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY · PI DEVINE, KATIE A · 2014 to 2018
$824k
A Prospective Study of Social Competence in Pediatric Brain Tumor SurvivorsK07CA178100 · NCI · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI HOCKING, MATTHEW C. · 2013 to 2017
$639k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA174728NCI NIH HHS K07 CA178100NCI NIH HHS P30 CA072720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To examine the psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) peer relationships short form (PR-SF), including association with peer-reported friendships, likeability, and social reputation. Method: 203 children (Mage = 10.12 years, SD = 2.37, range = 6-14) in Grades 1-8 completed the 8-item PR-SF and friendship nominations, like ratings, and social reputation measures about their peers during 2 classroom visits approximately 4 months apart, as part of a larger study. A confirmatory factor analysis, followed by an exploratory factor analysis, was conducted to examine the factor structure of the PR-SF. Spearman correlations between the PR-SF and peer-reported outcomes evaluated construct validity. Results: For the PR-SF, a 2-factor solution demonstrated better fit than a 1-factor solution. The 2 factors appear to assess friendship quality (3 items) and peer acceptance (5 items). Reliability was marginal for the friendship quality factor (.66) but adequate for the acceptance factor (.85); stability was .34 for the PR-SF over 4 months. The PR-SF (8 items) and acceptance factor (5 items) both had modest but significant correlations with measures of friendship (rs = .25-.27), likeability (rs = .21-.22), and social reputation (rs = .29-.44). Conclusions: The PR-SF appears to be measuring two distinct aspects of social functioning. The 5-item peer acceptance scale is modestly associated with peer-reported friendship, likeability, and social reputation. Although not a replacement for peer-reported outcomes, the PR-SF is a promising patient-reported outcome for peer relationships in youth.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsPeer GroupSelf ReportSocial AdjustmentAdolescentCancer SurvivorsChildFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFriendsHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychological DistancePsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29800306
PMCPMC6147751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.