Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(13):835–40.
Chiarotto A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, Boers M, et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(6):1127–42.
Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, Le Dorze G, et al. A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: the ROMA consensus statement. Int J Stroke. 2019;14(2):180–5.
Haywood K, Whitehead L, Nadkarni VM, Achana F, et al. COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in adults: an advisory statement from the international liaison committee on resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2018;127:147–63.
Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease P, Shea JA, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rhem Dis. 2017;76(4):673–80.
MacLennan S, Williamson PR, Bekema H, Campbell M, et al. A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials. BJU Int. 2017;120(5b):E64-e79.
Smith TOAO, Hawker GA, Hunter DJ, March LM, et al. The OMERACT-OARSI core domain set for measurement in clinical trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(8):981–9.
Chen K, Andersen T, Carroll L, Connelly L, et al. Recommendations for core outcome domain set for whiplash-associated disorders (CATWAD). Clin J Pain. 2019;35(9):727–36.
International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). 2020. Overall Adult Health. https://www.ichom.org/standard-sets/. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Grimby G, Franchignoni F. Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(8):661–72.
Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-s11.
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94.
Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, et al. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873–80.
Katzan IL, Lapin B. PROMIS GH (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system global health) scale in stroke: a validation study. Stroke. 2018;49(1):147–54.
Chiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA, Buchbinder R, et al. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain. 2018;159(3):481–95.
Salinas J, Sprinkhuizen SM, Ackerson T, Bernhardt J, et al. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke. 2016;47(1):180–6.
Chiarotto A, Terwee CB, Kamper SJ, Boers M, et al. Evidence on the measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments is largely missing in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;102:23–37.
Harvard Dataverse. 2020. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/HealthMeasures. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Terwee CB, Crins MHP, Boers M, de Vet HCW, et al. Validation of two PROMIS item banks for measuring social participation in the Dutch general population. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(1):211–20.
Crins MHP, Terwee CB, Ogreden O, Schuller W, et al. Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(5):1231–43.
HealthMeasures. 2020. HealthMeasures Scoring Service powered by Assessment Center. www.assessmentcenter.net/ac_scoringservice. Accessed 10 March 2021.
HealthMeasures. 2020. PROMIS Global Health Scoring Manual. http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/manuals/PROMIS_Global_Scoring_Manual.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Terwee C, Roorda L, De Vet H, Dekker J, et al. Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Qual Life Res. 2014;23(6):1733–41.
HealthMeasures. 2020. www.healthmeasures.net. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S22-31.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
Quach CW, Langer MM, Chen RC, Thissen D, et al. Reliability and validity of PROMIS measures administered by telephone interview in a longitudinal localized prostate cancer study. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2811–23.
Gibbons LE, Fredericksen R, Batey DS, Dant L, et al. Validity assessment of the PROMIS fatigue domain among people living with HIV. AIDS Res Ther. 2017;14:21.
Crins MHP, Terwee CB, Klausch T, Smits N, et al. The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Physical Function item bank exhibited strong psychometric properties in patients with chronic pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:47–58.
Flens G, Smits N, Terwee CB, Dekker J, et al. Development of a computerized adaptive test for anxiety based on the Dutch-Flemish version of the PROMIS item bank. Assessment. 2017:1073191117746742.
Bevans KB, Gardner W, Pajer KA, Becker B, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS(R) pediatric psychological and physical stress experiences measures. J Pediatr Psychol. 2018;43(6):678–92.
Cook KF, Kallen MA, Amtmann D. Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(4):447–60.
Reise SP, Scheines R, Widaman KF, Haviland MG. Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: a bifactor perspective. Educ Psychol Measur. 2013;73(1):5–26.
Ames AJ, Penfield RD. An NCME instructional module on item-fit statistics for item response theory models. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2015;34(3):39–48.
Edwards JR, Bagozzi RP. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychol Methods. 2000;5(2):155–74.
Bollen KA, Diamantopoulos A. In defense of causal-formative indicators: a minority report. Psychol Methods. 2017;22(3):581–96.
Fleuren BPI, van Amelsvoort L, Zijlstra FRH, de Grip A, et al. Handling the reflective-formative measurement conundrum: a practical illustration based on sustainable employability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;103:71–81.
Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(2):97–8.
Khan A, Chien CW, Bagraith KS. Parametric analyses of summative scores may lead to conflicting inferences when comparing groups: a simulation study. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47(4):300–4.
Draak TH, Vanhoutte EK, van Nes SI, Gorson KC, et al. Changing outcome in inflammatory neuropathies: Rasch-comparative responsiveness. Neurology. 2014;83(23):2124–32.
Doganay Erdogan B, Leung YY, Pohl C, Tennant A, et al. Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch working group systematic review and critique. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(1):194–202.
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, et al. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(7):711–7.
Gregory JJ, Werth PM, Reilly CA, Jevsevar DS. Cross-specialty PROMIS-global health differential item functioning. Qual Life Res. 2021.
Reeve BB, Fayers P. Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In: Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods of practice. 2nd edn (ed Fayers PM, Hays RD). Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2005. 2:55–73.
McKinley RL, Mills CN. A comparison of several goodness-of-fit statistics. Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9(1):49–57.
Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2016;21(2):137.
Revelle WR. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. 2017.
Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(Suppl 1):19–31.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus (version 6)[computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. 2010.
Mokken RJ. A theory and procedure of scale analysis: with applications in political research. Vol. 1. 2011: Walter de Gruyter.
Van der Ark LA. New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(5):1–27.
DeMars C. Item response theory. 2010: Oxford University Press.
Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Maheah. 2000, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Chalmers RP. mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(6):1–29.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57.
Yusoff MSB, Rahim AFA, Yaacob MJ. The development and validity of the Medical Student Stressor Questionnaire (MSSQ). ASEAN J Psychiatry. 2010;11(1):231–5.
Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. 2016.
Choi SW, Gibbons LE, Crane PK. Lordif: an R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. J Stat Softw. 2011;39(8):1.
Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G. Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care. 2006;S115-S123.
Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36.
Mansolf M, Reise SP. Exploratory bifactor analysis: the Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization and Jennrich-Bentler analytic rotations. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016;51(5):698–717.
Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, Coon CD. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value Health. 2015;18(1):25–34.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.