Showing papers by "Benjamin D. Schalet published in 2017"

Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales

Abstract: Self-reports of health provide useful information about function and well-being that can improve communication between patients and clinicians. Global health items provide summary information that are predictive of health care utilization and mortality. There is a need for parsimonious global health scales for use in large sample surveys. This study evaluates the reliability and validity of brief measures of global physical health and mental health in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®) project. A total of 21,133 persons included in the PROMIS development sample: 52% female; 82% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic; median age of 50 years. We identified two global physical health items (GPH-2) and two global mental health items (GMH-2) with highest discrimination parameters and compared their reliabilities and construct validity to that of the original 4-item scales (GPH-4 and GMH-4) and a single global health item (Global01). Internal consistency reliability was 0.73 for the GPH-2 (versus 0.81 for the GPH-4) and 0.81 for the GMH-2 (versus 0.86 for the GMH-4). Marginal reliabilities were 0.55 for Global01, 0.70 for GPH-2, 0.79 for GPH-4, 0.80 for GMH-2, and 0.86 for GMH-4. The product-moment correlation between the GPH-2 and GPH-4 was 0.94 and between GMH-2 and GMH-4 was 0.97. The 2-item and 4-item versions of the scales had similar correlations with PROMIS domain scores, the EQ-5D-3L and comorbidities, but the 4-item scales were more strongly correlated with these measures. Adding a single item to a large cross-sectional population survey can cost as much as $100,000. The 2-item variants of the PROMIS global health scales reduce the cost of use on national surveys by 50%, a substantial cost savings. These briefer scales are also more practical for use in clinical practice. The 2-item versions of the PROMIS global health scales display adequate reliability for group comparisons and their associations with other indicators of health are similar to that of the original 4-item scales. The briefer scales are psychometrically sound and reduce burden of survey administration.

Motor-free composites from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) for people with disabilities.

Abstract: Purpose/objective The National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) includes a group of brief measures (i.e., 30 min) designed to assess language, processing speed, working memory, episodic memory, and executive functioning. These subtests can be combined to create composite scores that reflect fluid and crystallized cognition, as well as overall cognition. The battery is of limited utility with individuals who have impaired upper extremity motor functioning. This manuscript examines the accuracy of the Oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test as a substitute for the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test for computing motor-free composite scores. Research Method/Design: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI; n = 188), traumatic brain injury (TBI; n = 159), or stroke (n = 180) completed the NIHTB-CB. We used the Oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test to create a Motor-Free Pattern Comparison score; this was used to create revised, Motor-Free Composite scores for Fluid Cognition and Overall Cognition. Results Although there were statistically significant overall differences between the two Fluid and Overall Cognition composite scores for some of the clinical groups (scores based on the motor-free approach were significantly higher than the original score), these differences were small and partly because of overclassification of impaired processing speed in participants with motor impairment. There was good to substantial agreement with regard to "impairment" classification between the two sets of Original and Motor-Free composite scores. Conclusions/implications Although the Motor-Free scores are not a perfect match for the Original Composite scores, they provide a reliable and valid way to examine overall and fluid cognition in individuals with upper extremity motor impairments. (PsycINFO Database Record