ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Comparative performance of PROMIS Sleep Disturbance computerized adaptive testing algorithms and static short form in postmenopausal women.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance v1.0 item bank (27 items) measures sleep disturbances. Rather than the full item bank, an 8-item short form (PROMIS SD SF 8b) or computerized adaptive testing (CAT) can be used. This study compares the performance of the PROMIS SD SF 8b with two CAT algorithms in postmenopausal women.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of data collected for the original psychometric testing of the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance item bank, in a sub-sample of women aged ≥55. A graded response model (GRM) was fitted for the item bank, then simulations evaluated the performance of CAT algorithms and the short form, in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) versus the latent trait estimate derived from the full bank. Two CAT algorithms were tested: CAT1 (stop once standard error <0.3 or 12 items administered) and CAT2 (stop once 8 items administered). Convergent and divergent hypotheses for validity were tested through correlations with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Known-groups comparisons were made between those with and without self-reported sleep disorder.
resultsA sample of 337 women was analyzed. Unidimensionality and item-level fit to the GRM was supported; however, the local independence assumption was violated. The CAT1 algorithm showed 4.18 items on average, with a minor decrease in performance (higher RMSE value) compared to CAT2 or the PROMIS SD SF 8b. Administering 8 items adaptively (CAT2) compared to fixed (PROMIS SD SF 8b) performed similarly (RMSE difference = 0.001). Reliability exceeded 0.90 across most of the latent trait for all approaches. Correlations with the PSQI and ESS were largely as hypothesized, with minor differences in coefficient values between the approaches (all within 0.05). Women reporting a sleep disorder had greater sleep disturbance than those who did not (p < 0.001 for all).
conclusionsThe results of this study support using the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance item bank in postmenopausal women. The choice of PROMIS SD SF 8b versus CAT can largely be driven by practical reasons (respondent burden and operational complexity) rather than concerns of differential reliability and validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.