Skip to main page content
U.S. flag
See More

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Nov;63(11):1169-78.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021. Epub 2010 Aug 5.

Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel

Honghu Liu  1 , David Cella, Richard Gershon, Jie Shen, Leo S Morales, William Riley, Ron D Hays
Affiliations

Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel

Honghu Liu et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), which collected data from an Internet polling panel, and to compare PROMIS with national norms.

Study design and setting: We compared demographics and self-rated health of the PROMIS general Internet sample (N=11,796) and one of its subsamples (n=2,196) selected to approximate the joint distribution of demographics from the 2000 U.S. Census, with three national surveys and U.S. Census data. The comparisons were conducted using equivalence testing with weights created for PROMIS by raking.

Results: The weighted PROMIS population and subsample had similar demographics compared with the 2000 U.S. Census, except that the subsample had a higher percentage of people with higher education than high school. Equivalence testing shows similarity between PROMIS general population and national norms with regard to body mass index, EQ-5D health index (EuroQol group defined descriptive system of health-related quality of life states consisting of five dimensions including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), and self-rating of general health.

Conclusion: Self-rated health of the PROMIS general population is similar to that of existing samples from the general U.S. population. The weighted PROMIS general population is more comparable to national norms than the unweighted population with regard to subject characteristics. The findings suggest that the representativeness of the Internet data is comparable to those from probability-based general population samples.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equivalence testing for general health item comparisons between PROMIS samples and national norms (MEPS, NHANES, BRFSS)
note: The horizontal bars depict confidence intervals (CI). CI for equivalencies (90% CI) are contained in the interval with endpoints −10% and +10% of the corresponding national norm means.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Equivalence testing for comparisons of EQ-5D health index score and Body Mass Index (BMI) between PROMIS samples and national norms
note: The horizontal bars depict confidence intervals (CI). CI for equivalencies (90% CI) are contained in the interval with endpoints −10% and +10% of the corresponding national norm means.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wyatt JC. When to use web-based surveys. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:426–429. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schmidt WC. World-Wide Web survey research: benefits, potential problems, and solutions. Behav Res Meth Instrum Compu. 1997;29:274–279.
    1. Bell H, Bridget Busch N, DiNitto D. Can you ask that over the telephone? Conducting sensitive and controversial research using random-digit dialing. Med Law. 2006;25:59–81. - PubMed
    1. Strickland OL, Moloney MF, Dietrich AS, et al. Measurement issues related to data collection on the World Wide Web. Adv Nurs Sci. 2003;26(4):246–56. - PubMed
    1. Reips U. The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In: Birnbaum MH, editor. Psychological Experiments on the Internet. Academic Press; San Diego, CA: 2000. pp. 89–117.

Publication types

MeSH terms