Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34251615›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2021

Differential Item Functioning Analyses of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Measures: Methods, Challenges, Advances, and Future Directions.

Jeanne A Teresi, Chun Wang, Marjorie Kleinman, Richard N Jones, David J Weiss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Examining differential item functioning in self-reported health survey data: via multilevel modeling.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  7. Differential item functioning between English, German, and Spanish PROMIS® physical function ceiling items.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Establishing and evaluating the gradient of item naming difficulty in post-stroke aphasia and semantic dementia.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2024
    Article
  10. Evaluation of covariate effects in item response theory models.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Accuracy of mixture item response theory models for identifying sample heterogeneity in patient-reported outcomes: a simulation study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Jeanne A TeresiColumbia University Stroud Center, New York, NY, USA. teresimeas@aol.com.
Chun WangCenter for Statistics and the Social Sciences (Affiliate), University of Washington College of Education, Seattle, WA, USA.
Marjorie KleinmanNew York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Richard N JonesDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
David J WeissUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN W BYERS · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
Residing in the Community with Dementia at the End of Life: Understanding Hospice Use and Residential SettingP30AG028741 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ORNA INTRATOR · 2010 to 2026
$21.9M
Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUUL1TR000101 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MELLMAN, THOMAS A, VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2012 to 2015
$19.3M
Pilot CoreP30AG022845 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Manney Carrington Reid · 2003 to 2026
$15.2M
Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUUL1RR031975 · NCRR · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2010 to 2011
$14.6M
Research Education CoreP30AG059303 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ADAM M BRICKMAN, Jennifer Jaie Manly · 2018 to 2026
$6.0M
Validation of PROMIS in Diverse Cancer PopulationsU01AR057971 · NIAMS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MOINPOUR, CAROL M, POTOSKY, ARNOLD L · 2009 to 2013
$5.7M
Computerized Adaptive Testing to Direct Delivery of Hospital-Based RehabilitationR01HD079439 · NICHD · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI CHEVILLE, ANDREA LYNNE · 2015 to 2019
$3.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000101NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031975NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR057971NIA NIH HHS P30 AG022845NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028741NIA NIH HHS P30 AG059303NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD079439
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several methods used to examine differential item functioning (DIF) in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures are presented, including effect size estimation. A summary of factors that may affect DIF detection and challenges encountered in PROMIS DIF analyses, e.g., anchor item selection, is provided. An issue in PROMIS was the potential for inadequately modeled multidimensionality to result in false DIF detection. Section 1 is a presentation of the unidimensional models used by most PROMIS investigators for DIF detection, as well as their multidimensional expansions. Section 2 is an illustration that builds on previous unidimensional analyses of depression and anxiety short-forms to examine DIF detection using a multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) model. The Item Response Theory-Log-likelihood Ratio Test (IRT-LRT) method was used for a real data illustration with gender as the grouping variable. The IRT-LRT DIF detection method is a flexible approach to handle group differences in trait distributions, known as impact in the DIF literature, and was studied with both real data and in simulations to compare the performance of the IRT-LRT method within the unidimensional IRT (UIRT) and MIRT contexts. Additionally, different effect size measures were compared for the data presented in Section 2. A finding from the real data illustration was that using the IRT-LRT method within a MIRT context resulted in more flagged items as compared to using the IRT-LRT method within a UIRT context. The simulations provided some evidence that while unidimensional and multidimensional approaches were similar in terms of Type I error rates, power for DIF detection was greater for the multidimensional approach. Effect size measures presented in Section 1 and applied in Section 2 varied in terms of estimation methods, choice of density function, methods of equating, and anchor item selection. Despite these differences, there was considerable consistency in results, especially for the items showing the largest values. Future work is needed to examine DIF detection in the context of polytomous, multidimensional data. PROMIS standards included incorporation of effect size measures in determining salient DIF. Integrated methods for examining effect size measures in the context of IRT-based DIF detection procedures are still in early stages of development.

Indexed as

AnxietyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansInformation SystemsPsychometricsdifferential item functioningeffect size estimatesmeasurementmultidimensional IRTPROMIS

Identifiers

PMID34251615
PMCPMC8889890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.