| Title |
Assessment of the psychometrics of a PROMIS item bank: self-efficacy for managing daily activities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-016-1270-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ickpyo Hong, Craig A. Velozo, Chih-Ying Li, Sergio Romero, Ann L. Gruber-Baldini, Lisa M. Shulman |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometrics of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System self-efficacy for managing daily activities item bank. The item pool was field tested on a sample of 1087 participants via internet (n = 250) and in-clinic (n = 837) surveys. All participants reported having at least one chronic health condition. The 35 item pool was investigated for dimensionality (confirmatory factor analyses, CFA and exploratory factor analysis, EFA), item-total correlations, local independence, precision, and differential item functioning (DIF) across gender, race, ethnicity, age groups, data collection modes, and neurological chronic conditions (McFadden Pseudo R (2) less than 10 %). The item pool met two of the four CFA fit criteria (CFI = 0.952 and SRMR = 0.07). EFA analysis found a dominant first factor (eigenvalue = 24.34) and the ratio of first to second eigenvalue was 12.4. The item pool demonstrated good item-total correlations (0.59-0.85) and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97). The item pool maintained its precision (reliability over 0.90) across a wide range of theta (3.70), and there was no significant DIF. The findings indicated the item pool has sound psychometric properties and the test items are eligible for development of computerized adaptive testing and short forms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 11% |
| Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 16% |
| Psychology | 13 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,729,270
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,585
of 2,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,968
of 300,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#25
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,850 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.