Test-retest reliability and smallest detectable change of the Bristol Impact of Hypermobility (BIoH) questionnaire

Abstract

Objective: The Bristol Impact of Hypermobility (BIoH) questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure developed in conjunction with adults with Joint Hypermobility Syndrome (JHS). It has demonstrated strong concurrent validity with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component score but other psychometric properties have yet to be established. This study aimed to determine its testretest reliability and smallest detectable change (SDC).Design: A test-retest reliability study.Setting: Participants were recruited from the Hypermobility Syndromes Association, a patient organisation in the United Kingdom.Patients: Recruitment packs were sent to 1,080 adults who had given permission to be contacted about research. Main Outcome Measures:BIoH and SF-36 questionnaires were administered at baseline and repeated two weeks later. An 11-point global rating of change scale (-5 to +5) was also administered at two weeks. Test-retest analysis and calculation of the SDC was conducted on 'stable' patients (defined as global rating of change -1 to +1). Conclusion:The results provide further evidence of the potential of the BIoH questionnaire to underpin research and clinical practice for people with JHS.

Ability of the Bristol Impact of Hypermobility questionnaire to discriminate between people with and without Joint Hypermobility Syndrome: a known‐group validity study

“…The current research involving non‐JHS participants was approved by the Faculty of Health & Applied Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of the West of England, Bristol (HAS/16/12/076). Previous ethical approval was in place for the collection and use of data from the JHS cohort (HAS/15/01/99), as described by Palmer, Manns, et al ().…”

“…Committee at the University of the West of England, Bristol (HAS/ 16/12/076). Previous ethical approval was in place for the collection and use of data from the JHS cohort (HAS/15/01/99), as described by Palmer, Manns, et al (2017).…”

“…The BIoH questionnaire has demonstrated strong concurrent validity with the physical component score of the SF‐36 ( r = −0.725) (Palmer, Cramp, et al, ) and has also shown excellent test–retest reliability (Interclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.922) (Palmer, Manns, et al, ). The smallest detectable change, beyond which changes are likely to be greater than measurement error, has been calculated as 42 points (Palmer, Manns, et al, ). A qualitative evaluation of the questionnaire by patients and therapists has also strongly supported its appropriateness, validity, acceptability, feasibility and interpretability (Manns, Cramp, Lewis, Clark, & Palmer, ).…”

“…The BIoH questionnaire has demonstrated strong concurrent validity with the physical component score of the SF-36 (r = −0.725) and has also shown excellent test-retest reliability (Interclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.922) (Palmer, Manns, et al, 2017). The smallest detectable change, beyond which changes are likely to be greater than measurement error, has been calculated as 42 points (Palmer, Manns, et al, 2017).…”

The views of people with joint hypermobility syndrome on its impact, management and the use of patient‐reported outcome measures. A thematic analysis of open‐ended questionnaire responses

“…A total of 615 valid responses were received by Palmer et al (), and a quantitative approach was then used to select the items for the final questionnaire. The final BIoH questionnaire items were subsequently found to exhibit strong concurrent validity with the SF‐36 physical component score ( r = −0.725, n = 615) (Palmer et al, ) and, in a further study, excellent test–retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.923, n = 233) (Palmer, Manns, Cramp, Lewis, & Clark et al, ). However, the qualitative comments gathered during the initial questionnaire development were not formally analysed.…”