Diamantes do médio rio Jequitinhonha, Minas Gerais: qualificação gemológica e análise granulométrica

BackgroundGlobal health measures represent an attractive option for researchers and clinicians seeking a brief snapshot of a patient's overall perspective on his or her health. Because scores on different global health measures are not comparable, comparative effectiveness research (CER) is challenging.ObjectiveTo establish a common reporting metric so that the physical and mental health scores on the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12 (©) ) can be converted into scores on the corresponding Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) Global Health scores.DesignFollowing a single-sample linking design, participants from an Internet panel completed items from the PROMIS Global Health and VR-12 Health Survey. A common metric was created using analyses based on item response theory (IRT), producing score cross-walk tables for the mental and physical health components of each measure. The linking relationships were evaluated by calculating the standard deviation of differences between the observed and linked PROMIS scores and estimating confidence intervals by sample size.ParticipantsParticipants (N = 2025) were 49 % male and 73 % white; mean age was 46 years.Main measuresMental and physical health subscales of the PROMIS Global Health and the VR-12. The mean VR-12 physical component and mental component scores were 45.2 and 46.6, respectively; the mean PROMIS physical and mental health scores were 48.3 and 48.5, respectively.Key resultsWe found evidence that the combined set of VR-12 and PROMIS items were relatively unidimensional and that we could proceed with linking. Linking worked better between the physical health than mental health scores using VR-12 item responses (vs. linking based on algorithmic scores). For each of the cross-walks, users can minimize the impact of linking error with modest increases in sample sizes.ConclusionsVR-12 scores can be expressed on the PROMIS Global Health metric to facilitate the evaluation of treatment, including CER. Extending these results to other common measures of global health is encouraged

PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions

To present an overview of a series of studies in which the clinical validity of the National Institutes of Health’s Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (NIH; PROMIS) measures was evaluated, by domain, across six clinical populations

What's in a score:A longitudinal investigation of scores based on item response theory and classical test theory for the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire in cognitively normal and impaired older adults

OBJECTIVE:We aimed to investigate whether item response theory (IRT)-based scoring allows for a more accurate, responsive, and less biased assessment of everyday functioning than traditional classical test theory (CTT)-based scoring, as measured with the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire. METHOD: In this longitudinal multicenter study including cognitively normal and impaired individuals, we examined IRT-based and CTT-based score distributions and differences between diagnostic groups using linear regressions, and investigated scale attenuation. We compared change over time between scoring methods using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes for time.RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-four participants were included (66.6 ± 7.7 years, 54% female): n = 2,032 (89%) with normal cognition, n = 93 (4%) with subjective cognitive decline, n = 79 (3%) with mild cognitive impairment, and n = 91 (4%) with dementia. At baseline, IRT-based and CTT-based scores were highly correlated (r = -0.92). IRT-based scores showed less scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. In a subsample of n = 1,145 (62%) who were followed for a mean of 1.3 (SD = 0.6) years, IRT-based scores declined significantly among cognitively normal individuals (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.15, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.03], effect size = -0.02), whereas CTT-based scores did not (B = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41], effect size = 0.02). In the other diagnostic groups, effect sizes of change over time were similar. CONCLUSIONS: IRT-based scores were less affected by scale attenuation than CTT-based scores. With regard to responsiveness, IRT-based scores showed more signal than CTT-based scores in early disease stages, highlighting the IRT-based scores' superior suitability for use in preclinical populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p

Linking Scores with Patient-Reported Health Outcome Instruments: A VALIDATION STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THREE LINKING METHODS

The psychometric process used to establish a relationship between the scores of two (or more) instruments is generically referred to as linking. When two instruments with the same content and statistical test specifications are linked, these instruments are said to be equated. Linking and equating procedures have long been used for practical benefit in educational testing. In recent years, health outcome researchers have increasingly applied linking techniques to patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. However, these applications have some noteworthy purposes and associated methodological questions. Purposes for linking health outcomes include the harmonization of data across studies or settings (enabling increased power in hypothesis testing), the aggregation of summed score data by means of score crosswalk tables, and score conversion in clinical settings where new instruments are introduced, but an interpretable connection to historical data is needed. When two PRO instruments are linked, assumptions for equating are typically not met and the extent to which those assumptions are violated becomes a decision point around how (and whether) to proceed with linking. We demonstrate multiple linking procedures—equipercentile, unidimensional IRT calibration, and calibrated projection—with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression bank and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We validate this link across two samples and simulate different instrument correlation levels to provide guidance around which linking method is preferred. Finally, we discuss some remaining issues and directions for psychometric research in linking PRO instruments

PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores.

PurposeThe PROMIS-29 v2.0 profile assesses pain intensity using a single 0-10 numeric rating item and seven health domains (physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance) using four items per domain. This paper describes the development of physical and mental health summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0.MethodWe conducted factor analyses of PROMIS-29 scales on data collected from two internet panels (n = 3000 and 2000).ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses provided support for a physical health factor defined by physical function, pain (interference and intensity), and ability to participate in social roles and activities, and a mental health factor defined primarily by emotional distress (anxiety and depressive symptoms). Reliabilities for these two summary scores were 0.98 (physical health) and 0.97 (mental health). Correlations of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores with chronic conditions and other health-related quality of life measures were consistent with a priori hypotheses.ConclusionsThis study develops and provides preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores that can be used in future studies to assess impacts of health care interventions and track changes in health over time. Further evaluation of these and alternative summary measures is recommended

PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores.

PurposeThe PROMIS-29 v2.0 profile assesses pain intensity using a single 0-10 numeric rating item and seven health domains (physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance) using four items per domain. This paper describes the development of physical and mental health summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0.MethodWe conducted factor analyses of PROMIS-29 scales on data collected from two internet panels (n = 3000 and 2000).ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses provided support for a physical health factor defined by physical function, pain (interference and intensity), and ability to participate in social roles and activities, and a mental health factor defined primarily by emotional distress (anxiety and depressive symptoms). Reliabilities for these two summary scores were 0.98 (physical health) and 0.97 (mental health). Correlations of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores with chronic conditions and other health-related quality of life measures were consistent with a priori hypotheses.ConclusionsThis study develops and provides preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores that can be used in future studies to assess impacts of health care interventions and track changes in health over time. Further evaluation of these and alternative summary measures is recommended

Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales.

Background: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. Methods:A total of 21,133 persons included in the PROMIS development sample: 52% female; 82% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic; median age of 50&nbsp;years.&nbsp;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). Results: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. Conclusions: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