<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Askew, Robert L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kim, Jiseon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chung, Hyewon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cook, Karon F</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson, Kurt L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Development of a Crosswalk for Pain Interference Measured by the BPI and PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of life research</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2769-76</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Introduction:&amp;nbsp; To help researchers in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) take advantage of the measurement properties of the &lt;/span&gt;PROMIS&lt;span&gt; Pain Interference instrument while maintaining continuity with previous research, we developed and tested a crosswalk table to transform Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference scale (BPI) scores to &lt;/span&gt;PROMIS-PI&lt;span&gt; short form (&lt;/span&gt;PROMIS-PI&lt;span&gt; SF) scores.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Methods: The BPI and the PROMIS-PI SF were administered in two studies that included persons with MS. One sample of 369 participants served as a developmental calibration sample, and separate sample of 360 served as a validation sample. The crosswalk development included dimensionality assessment, item-level parameter estimation, and assessment of accuracy. BPI and PROMIS-PI T-scores were obtained from participants&amp;rsquo; item responses, and using the crosswalk table, PROMIS-PI T-scores were derived from responses to the BPI items. Differences between observed and crosswalked T-scores were compared in both samples.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Results: For BPI summary scores ranging from 0 to 10, corresponding T-scores ranged from 38.6 to 81.2. &amp;nbsp;The mean difference between observed and crosswalked T-scores was 0.51 (sd=3.9) in the calibration sample and -1.47 (sd=4.2) in the validation sample. Approximately 80% of crosswalked scores in the calibration sample were within 4 score points of the observed PROMIS-PI SF scores, and 70% were within 4 points in the validation sample. In both samples, the largest differences were at lower levels of the pain interference continuum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conclusions: Crosswalked pain interference scores adequately approximated observed PROMIS-PI SF scores in both the calibration and validation samples. Researchers and clinicians interested in adopting the PROMIS instruments can use this table to transform BPI scores to enable comparisons with other studies and to maintain continuity with previous research.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2769</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier, Charles H</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rosenberg, Dori E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Motl, Robert W</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Artherholt, Samantha</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verrall, Aimee</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen, Mark P</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Depression and physical activity among adults with multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury, and post-polio syndrome</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.posters2view.com/ectrims2012/view.php?nu=969</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS)</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lyon, France</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chen, Wen-Hung</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Revicki, Dennis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amtmann, Dagmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen, Mark P</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Keefe, Francis J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cella, David</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Development and Analysis of PROMIS Pain Intensity Scale.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of life research</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.springerlink.com/content/5h88546t283p1347/fulltext.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Aims: The primary objective of this study is to develop a PROMIS Pain Intensity Scale by evaluating the unidimensionality and completing item calibration of the pain intensity items developed in the PROMIS Wave I study. This document provides a summary of the item selection process based on the results of the conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT) analysis. Methods: The PROMIS project is focused on developing item banks and assessment instruments for pain and other patient-reported outcome domains. The draft PROMIS pain related items were developed based on literature reviews, clinician interviews, and qualitative research with patients with pain. In addition to the three item banks related to pain (pain interference, pain quality, and pain behavior), six items were identiﬁed as pain intensity items. The data used in this study included: 1) PROMIS Wave I sample where internet survey data were collected from 838 participants who responded to all six pain intensity items and 5,059 participants who responded to at least one pain intensity item; 2) American Chronic Pain Association (ACPA) sample where 967 participants completed subset of the pain intensity items; and 3) Northwestern University sample where 532 participants completed another subset of the pain intensity items. Participants reporting no pain were excluded from the analysis. We evaluated inter-item correlations, conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA), item response theory analysis, and correlations with other PROMIS global items of these six pain intensity items. Results: Inter-item correlation ranges from 0.33 to 0.93. CFA shows good ﬁt of the six items to a unidimensional model: comparative ﬁx index (CFI)=0.989, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)=0.986, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.093. Based on results of IRT analysis results three items are removed owing to local dependency and model misﬁt. The IRT slope parameters of the three remaining items were 1.84, 3.15, and 4.42. The category threshold parameters ranged from -2.30 to 3.23. Correlation with global pain item is 0.68, and 0.61 with PROMIS global physical health score. Conclusions: The PROMIS pain intensity scale provides a measure of characteristic pain that could be useful in clinical and research settings.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suppl 1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cook, Karon F</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier, Charles H</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bamer, Alyssa M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Choi, Seung W</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kroenke, Kurt</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fann, Jesse R</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Do somatic and cognitive symptoms of traumatic brain injury confound depression screening?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Phys Med Rehabil</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Phys Med Rehabil</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adult</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain Injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cognition Disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Depression</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Depressive Disorder, Major</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Middle Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primary Health Care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Retrospective Studies</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011 May</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">92</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">818-23</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether items of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) function differently in persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) than in persons from a primary care sample. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective analysis of responses to the PHQ-9 collected in 2 previous studies. Responses to the PHQ-9 were modeled using item response theory, and the presence of DIF was evaluated using ordinal logistic regression. SETTING: Eight primary care sites and a single trauma center in Washington state. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=3365) were persons from 8 primary care sites (n=3000) and a consecutive sample of persons with complicated mild to severe TBI from a trauma center who were 1 year postinjury (n=365). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: PHQ-9. RESULTS: No PHQ-9 item demonstrated statistically significant or meaningful DIF attributable to TBI. A sensitivity analysis failed to show that the cumulative effects of nonsignificant DIF resulted in a systematic inflation of PHQ-9 total scores. Therefore, the results also do not support the hypothesis that cumulative DIF for PHQ-9 items spuriously inflates the numbers of persons with TBI screened as potentially having major depressive disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 is a valid screener of major depressive disorder in people with complicated mild to severe TBI, and all symptoms can be counted toward the diagnosis of major depressive disorder without special concern about overdiagnosis or unnecessary treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21530731?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>