A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: The HIT-6™

Background: Migraine and other severe headaches can cause suffering and reduce functioning and productivity. Patients are the best source of information about such impact. Objective: To develop a new short form (HIT-6) for assessing the impact of headaches that has broad content coverage but is brief as well as reliable and valid enough to use in screening and monitoring patients in clinical research and practice. Methods: HIT-6 items were selected from an existing item pool of 54 items and from 35 items suggested by clinicians. Items were selected and modified based on content validity, item response theory (IRT) information functions, item internal consistency, distributions of scores, clinical validity, and linguistic analyses. The HIT-6 was evaluated in an Internet-based survey of headache sufferers (n = 1103) who were members of America Online (AOL). After 14 days, 540 participated in a follow-up survey. Results: HIT-6 covers six content categories represented in widely used surveys of headache impact. Internal consistency, alternate forms, and test–retest reliability estimates of HIT-6 were 0.89, 0.90, and 0.80, respectively. Individual patient score confidence intervals (95%) of app. ±5 were observed for 88% of all respondents. In tests of validity in discriminating across diagnostic and headache severity groups, relative validity (RV) coefficients of 0.82 and 1.00 were observed for HIT-6, in comparison with the Total Score. Patient-level classifications based in HIT-6 were accurate 88.7% of the time at the recommended cut-off score for a probability of migraine diagnosis. HIT-6 was responsive to self-reported changes in headache impact. Conclusions: The IRT model estimated for a 'pool' of items from widely used measures of headache impact was useful in constructing an efficient, reliable, and valid 'static' short form (HIT-6) for use in screening and monitoring patient outcomes.

[1]  Howard B. Lee,et al.  Foundations of Behavioral Research , 1973 .

[2]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

[3]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Adaptive EAP Estimation of Ability in a Microcomputer Environment , 1982 .

[4]  Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. , 1988, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[5]  J. Dartigues,et al.  A Nationwide Survey of Migraine in France: Prevalence and Clinical Features in Adults , 1992, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[6]  W F Stewart,et al.  Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. , 1992, JAMA.

[7]  C. McHorney,et al.  The MOS 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36): II. Psychometric and Clinical Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and Mental Health Constructs , 1993, Medical care.

[8]  B. Gandek,et al.  Measuring the Functional Status and Well‐Being of Patients with Migraine Headache , 1994, Headache.

[9]  W H Rogers,et al.  Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. , 1995, Medical care.

[10]  R. Lipton,et al.  Variation in migraine prevalence by race , 1996, Neurology.

[11]  Glaxo Wellcome.  Burden of Migraine A Review of its Socioeconomic Impact , 1997 .

[12]  M Sullivan,et al.  Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  M. Lainez,et al.  Quality of Life in Migraine and Chronic Daily Headache Patients , 1998, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[14]  M Pringle,et al.  Do Minutes Count? Consultation Lengths in General Practice , 1998, Journal of health services research & policy.

[15]  R. Lipton,et al.  Reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score in A Population-Based Sample of Headache Sufferers , 1999, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[16]  W F Stewart,et al.  Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. , 1999, Archives of internal medicine.

[17]  J. Ware,et al.  Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. , 2000, Medical care.

[18]  R. Lipton,et al.  Migraine, quality of life, and depression , 2000, Neurology.

[19]  J. Ware,et al.  How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the SF-8™ Health Survey. , 2001 .

[20]  J. Schoenen,et al.  Potential of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire as a public health initiative and in clinical practice , 2001, Neurology.

[21]  W. Young,et al.  Quality-of-life differences between patients with episodic and transformed migraine. , 2000, Headache.

[22]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[23]  J. Alacoque,et al.  Translating the Short-Form Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) in 27 countries: Methodological and conceptual issues , 2003, Quality of Life Research.