Comparison of information provided on diabetes distress when using PAID-20, PAID-11 or PAID-5. A registry-based study applying Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses among 10,190 adults with type 1 diabetes in Norway
Authors' conclusion
The PAID-20 captures most information on the latent diabetes distress trait; however, the PAID-11 provides comparable information and captures the most serious problem areas. The PAID-5 provided limited information and covers limited aspects of distress. Overall, the PAID-11 may be a good choice for assessing diabetes distress in both research and clinical practice.
Study context
- Population
- Individuals with T1D in Norway, nationwide registry data
- Participants
- 10,190 individuals
- Exposure
- PAID-20 vs PAID-11 vs PAID-5
- Outcome
- Information provided on the latent diabetes distress trait (test information curves)
Methodological detailsnationwide registry, Item Response Theory analyses
- Nationwide registry
- Item Response Theory analyses
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Range of latent distress trait at test information level ≥ 10 (SD under/above mean)
PAID-20
−1.30 to 3.32
SD
PAID-11
−1.17 to 2.76
SD
PAID-5
−0.59 to 2.27
SD
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Item-level information
- PAID-20 items with flat information curves and limited contribution to the latent trait
- 6
- Of the 12 items most frequently reported as serious problem areas, number included in PAID-11
- 11
Original publication
Comparison of information provided on diabetes distress when using PAID-20, PAID-11 or PAID-5. A registry-based study applying IRT analyses among 10,190 adults with type 1 diabetes in Norway. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 20 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →