Computerized-adaptive testing versus short forms for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease patient-reported outcome assessment

Introduction:Computerized-adaptive testing (CAT) may increase reliability or reduce respondent burden for assessing patient-reported outcomes compared with static short forms (SFs). We compared CAT versus SF administration of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (R) (PROMIS (R)) Pediatric measures in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods:Participants completed 4-item CAT, 5- or 6-item CAT, and 4-item SF versions of the PROMIS Pediatric measures. We compared average T-scores, intra-class correlations (ICCs), floor and ceiling effects, and standard error of measurement (SEM) across forms, along with mean effect sizes between active versus quiescent IBD disease activity groups. Results:Average PROMIS T-scores across forms were <3 points (minimally important difference) of each other. All forms correlated highly with each other (ICCs >= 0.90) and had similar ceiling effects, but the CAT-5/6 had lower floor effects. The CAT-5/6 had lower SEM than the CAT-4 and SF-4, and the CAT-4 had a lower SEM than the SF-4. Mean effect sizes were similar across forms when contrasting disease activity groups. Conclusions:The CAT and SF forms produced similar score results, but the CAT had better precision and lower floor effects. Researchers should consider PROMIS pediatric CAT if they anticipate that their sample will skew toward symptom extremes.