ArticlesDevelopment of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interferenceAmtmann, Dagmara,*; Cook, Karon F.a; Jensen, Mark P.a; Chen, Wen-Hungb; Choi, Seungc; Revicki, Dennisb; Cella, Davidc; Rothrock, Nanc; Keefe, Francisd; Callahan, Leighe; Lai, Jin-SheicAuthor Information aDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Box 357920, Seattle, WA 98195–7920, USA bCenter for Health Outcomes Research, United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA cDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA dDepartments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Anesthesiology, Medicine and Psychology and Neuroscience: Social and Health Sciences, Duke University and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA eDepartments of Medicine, Orthopaedics, and Social Medicine and Thurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (206) 543 4741; fax: +1 (206) 685 9224. E-mail address:firstname.lastname@example.org Submitted August 28, 2009; revised February 27, 2010; accepted April 20, 2010. Pain: July 2010 - Volume 150 - Issue 1 - p 173-182 doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.025 Buy Metrics Abstract This paper describes the psychometric properties of the PROMIS-pain interference (PROMIS-PI) bank. An initial candidate item pool (n = 644) was developed and evaluated based on the review of existing instruments, interviews with patients, and consultation with pain experts. From this pool, a candidate item bank of 56 items was selected and responses to the items were collected from large community and clinical samples. A total of 14,848 participants responded to all or a subset of candidate items. The responses were calibrated using an item response theory (IRT) model. A final 41-item bank was evaluated with respect to IRT assumptions, model fit, differential item function (DIF), precision, and construct and concurrent validity. Items of the revised bank had good fit to the IRT model (CFI and NNFI/TLI ranged from 0.974 to 0.997), and the data were strongly unidimensional (e.g., ratio of first and second eigenvalue = 35). Nine items exhibited statistically significant DIF. However, adjusting for DIF had little practical impact on score estimates and the items were retained without modifying scoring. Scores provided substantial information across levels of pain; for scores in the T-score range 50–80, the reliability was equivalent to 0.96–0.99. Patterns of correlations with other health outcomes supported the construct validity of the item bank. The scores discriminated among persons with different numbers of chronic conditions, disabling conditions, levels of self-reported health, and pain intensity (p < 0.0001). The results indicated that the PROMIS-PI items constitute a psychometrically sound bank. Computerized adaptive testing and short forms are available. © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.