PROMIS Peer Relationships Short Form: How Well Does Self-Report Correlate With Data From Peers?

被引:23
作者
Devine, Katie A. [1 ]
Willard, Victoria W. [2 ]
Hocking, Matthew C. [3 ,4 ]
Stapleton, Jerod L. [1 ]
Rotter, David [1 ]
Bukowski, William M. [5 ]
Noll, Robert B. [6 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Rutgers Canc Inst New Jersey, Dept Med, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[2] St Jude Childrens Res Hosp, Dept Psychol, 332 N Lauderdale St, Memphis, TN 38105 USA
[3] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Concordia Univ, Dept Psychol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[6] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Pediat, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
children; peer relationships; PROMIS; psychometrics; social functioning; BRAIN-TUMOR SURVIVORS; SOCIAL COMPETENCE; CHILDREN; OUTCOMES; CHILDHOOD; REPUTATION; ADJUSTMENT; PREDICTOR; REJECTION; SYMPTOMS;
D O I
10.1093/jpepsy/jsy038
中图分类号
B844 [发展心理学(人类心理学)];
学科分类号
040202 ;
摘要
Objective To examine the psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS VR) peer relationships short form (PR-SF), including association with peer-reported friendships, likeability, and social reputation. Method 203 children (M-age = 10.12 years, SD = 2.37, range = 6-14) in Grades 1-8 completed the 8-item PR-SF and friendship nominations, like ratings, and social reputation measures about their peers during 2 classroom visits approximately 4 months apart, as part of a larger study. A confirmatory factor analysis, followed by an exploratory factor analysis, was conducted to examine the factor structure of the PR-SF. Spearman correlations between the PR-SF and peer-reported outcomes evaluated construct validity. Results For the PR-SF, a 2-factor solution demonstrated better fit than a 1-factor solution. The 2 factors appear to assess friendship quality (3 items) and peer acceptance (5 items). Reliability was marginal for the friendship quality factor (. 66) but adequate for the acceptance factor (. 85); stability was .34 for the PR-SF over 4 months. The PR-SF (8 items) and acceptance factor (5 items) both had modest but significant correlations with measures of friendship (r(s) = .25-.27), likeability (r(s) =.21-.22), and social reputation (r(s) =.29-.44). Conclusions The PR-SF appears to be measuring two distinct aspects of social functioning. The 5-item peer acceptance scale is modestly associated with peer-reported friendship, likeability, and social reputation. Although not a replacement for peer-reported outcomes, the PR-SF is a promising patient-reported outcome for peer relationships in youth.
引用
收藏
页码:1059 / 1067
页数:9
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] RELIABLE SOCIOMETRIC MEASURE FOR PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN
    ASHER, SR
    SINGLETON, LC
    TINSLEY, BR
    HYMEL, S
    [J]. DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1979, 15 (04) : 443 - 444
  • [2] Bagwell CL, 1998, CHILD DEV, V69, P140, DOI 10.2307/1132076
  • [3] Browne M. W., 1993, TESTING STRUCTURAL E, P136, DOI DOI 10.1177/0049124192021002005
  • [4] Bukowski W.M., 1989, Peer relations in child development, P15
  • [5] Peer relationships and psychopathology: Markers, moderators, mediators, mechanisms, and meanings
    Bukowski, WM
    Adams, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 34 (01) : 3 - 10
  • [6] Bukowski WM., 2012, HDB DEV RES METHODS, P211
  • [7] The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years
    Cella, David
    Yount, Susan
    Rothrock, Nan
    Gershon, Richard
    Cook, Karon
    Reeve, Bryce
    Ader, Deborah
    Fries, James F.
    Bruce, Bonnie
    Rose, Mattias
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 2007, 45 (05) : S3 - S11
  • [8] Cohen J., 1988, STAT POWER ANAL BEHA, DOI [10.4324/9780203771587, DOI 10.4324/9780203771587]
  • [9] Coie J.D., 1990, PEER REJECTION CHILD, P17
  • [10] Social function assessment tools for children and adolescents: A systematic review from 1988 to 2010
    Crowe, L. M.
    Beauchamp, M. H.
    Catroppa, C.
    Anderson, V.
    [J]. CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2011, 31 (05) : 767 - 785