Background: Electronic formats of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are now routinely used in clinical research studies. When changing from a validated paper and pen to electronic administration it is necessary to establish their equivalence. This study reports on the value of Rasch analysis in this process. Methods: Three groups of US pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients participated. The first completed an electronic version of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale (e-sample) and this was compared with two pen and paper administrated samples (pp1 and pp2). The three databases were combined and analysed for fit to the Rasch model. Equivalence was evaluated by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Results: The three datasets were matched randomly in terms of sample size (n=147). Mean age (years) and percentage of male respondents were as follows: e-sample (51.7, 16.0%); pp1 (50.0, 14.0%); pp2 (55.5, 40.4%). The combined dataset achieved fit to the Rasch model. Two items showed evidence of borderline DIF. Further analyses showed the inclusion of these items had little impact on Rasch estimates indicating the DIF identified was unimportant. Conclusions: Differences between the performance of the electronic and pen and paper administrations of the CAMPHOR Activity Limitation scale were minor. The results were successful in showing how the Rasch model can be used to determine the equivalence of alternative formats of PRO measures.