The expansion and validation of a new upper extremity item bank for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS)

Kaat, Aaron J.; Buckenmaier, Chester; Cook, Karon F.; Rothrock, Nan; Schalet, Benjamin D.; Vrahas, Mark

doi:10.1186/s41687-019-0158-6

Cited by 44 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is likely due to somewhat more heterogeneity of content in the PF item bank relative to the other banks and selection of PF items that emphasize mobility over other concepts such as upper extremity function and flexibility. 26,30,31 Investigators often ask how much statistical power a given test will have in a planned study or experiment. These short forms were constructed to maximize their precision and efficiency in clinical samples, estimated to be 1 SD worse than the general population.…”

Section: Identification Of the Item Sets For Each Promis Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

PROMIS® Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is a need for valid self-report measures of core health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains.Objective: To derive brief, reliable and valid health profile measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ® (PROMIS ® ) item banks.Methods: Literature review, investigator consensus process, item response theory (IRT) analysis, and expert review of scaling results from multiple PROMIS data sets. We developed 3 profile measures ranging in length from 29 to 57 questions. These profiles assess important HRQoL domains with highly informative subsets of items from respective item banks and yield reliable information across mild-to-severe levels of HRQoL experiences. Each instrument assesses the domains of pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, physical function, and social function using 4-, 6-, and 8-item short forms for each domain, and an average pain intensity domain score, using a 0-10 numeric rating scale.Results: With few exceptions, all domain short forms within the profile measures were highly reliable across at least 3 standard deviation (30 T-score) units and were strongly correlated with the full bank scores. Construct validity with ratings of general health and quality of life was demonstrated. Information to inform statistical power for clinical and general population samples is also provided.Conclusions: Although these profile measures have been used widely, with summary scoring routines published, description of their development, reliability, and initial validity has not been published until this article. Further evaluation of these measures and clinical applications are encouraged.

show abstract

Section: Identification Of the Item Sets For Each Promis Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

PROMIS® Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, while the sample size used in the present study was adequate for investigating DIF [29,43,44], it was rather small for robust CFA results [45], potentially causing lack of sensitivity to detect multidimensionality. Several other studies have questioned whether different PROMIS PF domains are indeed measuring a unidimensional construct [7,21,42,46,47]. Moreover, upper body items are less informative compared with other PROMIS PF items, also indicating a distinct upper extremity construct [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, upper body items are less informative compared with other PROMIS PF items, also indicating a distinct upper extremity construct [9]. In consequence, some authors have suggested to use separate upper extremity and mobility item banks, which are provided by PROMIS [26,42,47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using subdomain-specific item sets affected PROMIS physical function scores differently in cardiology and rheumatology patients

Liegl

Rose

Knebel

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) item bank has been developed to standardize patient-reported PF across medical fields. However, evidence of scoring equivalence across cardiology and rheumatology patients is still missing. Therefore, this study aims to investigate both (1) the extent of disease-related differential item functioning (DIF) and (2) the impact of the disease group on using subdomain-specific item sets for generating PROMIS PF scores in cardiology and rheumatology patients. Study Design and Setting: Ordinal regression was used to evaluate DIF between cardiology (n 5 201) and rheumatology (n 5 200) inpatients. To explore the disease-specific impact of PF subdomains on scoring, we compared scores derived from the full item bank with scores derived from subdomain-specific item sets for each disease group. Results: DIF was detected in 18 items, predominately from the upper extremity subdomain. When upper extremity items were used, cardiology patients reached systematically higher scores than using the full item bank. Rheumatology patients scored substantially higher when mobility items were used. Conclusion: Applying the PROMIS PF metric to disease-specific item sets including items from differing subdomains may lead to biased comparisons of PF levels across disease groups. Disease-specific item parameters should be provided for items showing DIF, and subdomain-related content balancing is recommended for scoring the generic PROMIS PF construct.

show abstract

“…Because we deemed a sample of at least 500 patients mandatory for item parameter estimation, data of studies performed by van Bruggen et al [17] and Haan et al [16] were pooled [18]. To study measurement invariance for language, we used additional data of US patients from an online panel, aged 18 years or older, who endorsed having some difficulty due to UE pain or function [15].…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PROMIS included an item bank that measures UErelated physical functioning and this bank has recently been updated, from v1.2 to v2.0, to measure a wider range of upper extremity functioning and showed higher precision when used in patients with UE disorders [15]. The v2.0 item bank was translated into Dutch-Flemish (DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0) and some of the psychometric properties of this bank have been studied in patients with UE disorders from a general [16] and an academic hospital [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Graded response model fit, measurement invariance and (comparative) precision of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity V2.0 item bank in patients with upper extremity disorders

Lameijer

Bruggen

Haan

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity (DF-PROMIS-UE) V2.0 item bank was recently developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). Unknown for this bank are: (1) if it is legitimate to calculate IRT-based scores for short forms and Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs), which requires that the items meet the assumptions of and fit the IRT-model (Graded Response Model [GRM]);(2) if it is legitimate to compare (sub) groups of patients using this measure, which requires measurement invariance; and (3) the precision of the estimated patients' scores for patients with different levels of functioning and compared to legacy measures. Aims were to evaluate (1) the assumptions of and fit to the GRM, (2) measurement invariance and (3) (comparative) precision of the DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0. Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected in Dutch patients with upper extremity disorders. Assessed were IRT-assumptions (unidimensionality [bi-factor analysis], local independence [residual correlations], monotonicity [coefficient H]), GRM item fit, measurement invariance (absence of Differential Item Functioning [DIF] due to age, gender, center, duration, and location of complaints) and precision (standard error of IRT-based scores across levels of functioning). To study measurement invariance for language [Dutch vs. English], additional US data were used. Legacy instruments were the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the QuickDASH and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ).

show abstract

The expansion and validation of a new upper extremity item bank for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS)

Cited by 44 publications

References 32 publications

PROMIS® Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains

PROMIS® Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains

Using subdomain-specific item sets affected PROMIS physical function scores differently in cardiology and rheumatology patients

Graded response model fit, measurement invariance and (comparative) precision of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity V2.0 item bank in patients with upper extremity disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About