Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
PRO-Angoff method for remote standard setting: establishing clinical thresholds for the upper digestive disease tool.
Lee, Minji K; Abou Chaar, Mohamad K; Blackmon, Shanda H; Yost, Kathleen J.
Affiliation
  • Lee MK; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Ave SW, 55902, Rochester, MN, USA. lee.minji@mayo.edu.
  • Abou Chaar MK; Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Blackmon SH; Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Yost KJ; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Ave SW, 55902, Rochester, MN, USA.
J Patient Rep Outcomes ; 8(1): 30, 2024 Mar 12.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38472561
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) Tool™ is used to monitor symptom frequency, intensity, and interference across nine symptom domains and includes two Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains assessing physical and mental health. This study aimed to establish cut scores for updated symptom domains through standard setting exercises and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of virtual standard setting.

METHODS:

The extended Angoff method was employed to determine cut scores. Subject matter experts refined performance descriptions for symptom control categories and achieved consensus. Domains were categorized into good, moderate, and poor symptom control. Two cut scores were established, differentiating good vs. moderate and moderate vs. poor. Panelists estimated average scores for 100 borderline patients per item. Cut scores were computed based on the sum of the average ratings for individual questions, converted to 0-100 scale.

RESULTS:

Performance descriptions were refined. Panelists discussed that interpretation of the scores should take into account the timing of symptoms after surgery and patient populations, and the importance of items asking symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily life. The good/moderate cut scores ranged from 21.3 to 35.0 (mean 28.6, SD 3.6) across domains, and moderate/poor ranged from 47.5 to 71.3 (mean 54.5, SD 7.0).

CONCLUSIONS:

Panelists were confident in the virtual standard setting process, expecting valid cut scores. Future studies can further validate the cut scores using patient perspectives and collect patient and physician preferences for displaying contextual items on patient- and physician-facing dashboard.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Health context: 1_ASSA2030 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Physical Examination / Patient Reported Outcome Measures Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Year: 2024 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Health context: 1_ASSA2030 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Physical Examination / Patient Reported Outcome Measures Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Year: 2024 Document type: Article