Minimally important differences were estimated for six @entity1 -Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System- @entity5 scales in advanced-stage XXXX @entity1 .

@entity1 @entity308 @entity1987 @entity5 @entity148 @entity158
OBJECTIVE: We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish @entity1987 ( @entity1987 ) for six @entity1 -Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)- @entity5 scales in advanced-stage @entity5 @entity1 . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: @entity1 completed 6 PROMIS- @entity5 scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n=101) assessment and a follow-up (n=88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based @entity1987 estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score @entity1987 were estimated for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Many cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not  meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item @entity158 Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress- @entity148 (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress- @entity308 (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these @entity1987 averaged between 0.40 and 0.63. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to address @entity1987 for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these @entity1987 in other @entity1 populations and to determine whether these @entity1987 vary by @entity1 ' level of functioning.
