ArticleAdvances in patient-reported outcomes2026
Coefficients of Repeatability for Likely Change: Comparison between PROMIS Computer Adaptive Tests and Short Forms.
Article in Advances in patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Objectives: The study identified necessary score changes to categorize patients as likely to have changed in PROMIS computer adaptive testing (CAT) and to compare these with selected 4-item or 8-item short forms (SF 4a or 8a). Methods: In a large health system symptom management intervention project, 5823 completed PROMIS CAT with the stopping rule of standard error < 3 for anxiety (v1.0), depression (v1.0), pain interference (v1.1), and physical function (v2.0) at baseline and at 4 months. Coefficients of repeatability (CRs) for likely change were determined using 68 % confidence level based on the reliable change index statistics using item response theory standard errors, which were compared with those using 90 % confidence level. CRs for 8-item or 4-item short forms (SFs) were estimated for comparison using established item parameters. Results: CRs at 68 % confidence ranged from |3| to |4| for CAT and SF 4a and |2| to |3| for SF 8a across domains for baseline scores in the mildly-to-severely impaired ranges. For baseline scores within normal limits across improvement or worsening, CRs at 68 % confidence were |3|-|8| for CAT, |3|-|14| for SF 4a, and |2|-|14| for SF 8a. Across score ranges, directions of change, and domains, relaxing confidence level from 90 % to 68 % lowered the change thresholds by up to 7 points for CAT, 14 points for SF 8a, and 14 points for SF 4a, with the largest reductions for baseline scores within the normal range. Conclusions: In symptomatic score ranges, smaller and somewhat constant CRs were observed compared to scores within normal ranges. SF 8a achieved CR of 1 point lower than CAT with 4 more items on average in the symptomatic score range. CAT achieved lower CR than either SF length in the healthiest score range.
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.