An initial psychometric evaluation of the German PROMIS v1.2 Physical Function item bank in patients with a wide range of health conditions

Abstract

Objectives:

To translate the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) item bank version 1.2 into German and to investigate psychometric properties of resulting full bank and seven derived short forms.

Design:

Cross-sectional psychometric study.

Setting:

Inpatient and outpatient clinics of the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.

Subjects:

A total of 10 adult patients with various chronic diseases participated in cognitive debriefing interviews. The final item bank was administered to n = 266 adult patients with a broad range of medical conditions.

Interventions:

Patient-reported outcome assessment as part of routine care.

Main measures:

PROMIS v1.2 PF bank; MOS SF-36 PF scale (PF-10).

Results:

Cross-cultural adaptation of the item bank followed established guidelines. For the final German translation, the corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.44 to 0.84. Cronbach’s alpha was high for each PROMIS PF short form (α = 0.88–0.96). The full PROMIS PF bank and most short forms correlated highly with the SF-36 PF-10 (r = 0.85–0.90), with the exception of PROMIS Upper Extremity (r = 0.64). PROMIS Upper Extremity showed ceiling effects and lower agreement with the full bank than other short forms. Unidimensionality was supported for all PROMIS PF measures using traditional factor analysis and nonparametric item response theory.

Conclusion:

The German PROMIS PF bank was found to be conceptually equivalent to the English version and fulfilled the psychometric requirements for use of short forms in clinical practice. Future studies should pay particular attention to samples with upper extremity functional limitations to further investigate the dimensional structure of PF as conceptualized according to PROMIS.

Keywords

Physical function patient-reported outcomes cultural adaptation PROMIS nonparametric item response theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kluetz

Slagle

Papadopoulos

et al . Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 1553–1558.

Artz

Dixon

Wylde

et al . Comparison of group-based outpatient physiotherapy with usual care after total knee replacement: a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2016; 31: 487–499.

Van Tuyl

LHD

Boers

. Patient-reported outcomes in core domain sets for rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2015; 11: 705–712.

Cella

Yount

Rothrock

et al . The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007; 45: S3–S11.

Snyder

Herman

White

et al . When using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice, the measure matters: a randomized controlled trial. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10: e299–e306.

Bruce

Fries

Ambrosini

et al . Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther 2009; 11: R191.

Rose

Bjorner

Becker

et al . Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 17–33.

Liegl

Wahl

Berghofer

et al . Using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item parameters of a common metric resulted in similar depression scores compared to independent item response theory model reestimation. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 71: 25–34.

Cella

Gershon

Lai

J-S

et al . The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 133–141.

10.

Cella

Riley

Stone

et al . The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 1179–1194.

11.

Ader

DN.

Developing the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Med Care 2007; 45: S1–S2.

12.

Rose

Bjorner

Gandek

et al . The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 516–526.

13.

Oude Voshaar

Ten Klooster

Glas

et al . Relative performance of commonly used physical function questionnaires in rheumatoid arthritis and a patient-reported outcomes measurement information system computerized adaptive test. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014; 66: 2900–2908.

14.

Liegl

Gandek

Fischer

et al . Varying the item format improved the range of measurement in patient-reported outcome measures assessing physical function. Arthritis Res Ther 2017; 19: 66.

15.

Oude Voshaar

ten Klooster

Glas

et al . Calibration of the PROMIS physical function item bank in Dutch patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e92367.

16.

Paz

Spritzer

Morales

et al . Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS®) Spanish-language physical functioning items. Qual Life Res 2012; 22: 1819–1830.

17.

Bjorner

Chang

C-H

Thissen

et al . Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 95–108.

18.

Eremenco

Cella

Arnold

BJ.

A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 2005; 28: 212–232.

19.

Terwee

Bot

de Boer

et al . Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34–42.

20.

Ware JE Jr and Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.

21.

Stochl

Jones

Croudace

TJ.

Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: a non-parametric IRT method in empirical research for applied health researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 74.

22.

Sijtsma

Emons

Bouwmeester

et al . Nonparametric IRT analysis of Quality-of-Life Scales and its application to the World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 275–290.

23.

Sijtsma

Molenaar

IW.

Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. London: SAGE, 2002.

24.

Reise

Scheines

Widaman

et al . Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling a bifactor perspective. Educ Psychol Meas 2013; 73: 5–26.

25.

Cook

Kallen

Amtmann

Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 447–460.

26.

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2012.

27.

Rosseel

lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 2012; 48: 1–36.

28.

Van der Ark

. Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw 2007; 20: 1–19.

29.

Revelle

psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 2014.

30.

World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th revision. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.

31.

Ellert

Kurth

B-M.

Health-related quality of life in adults in Germany. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2013; 56: 643–649.

32.

Oude Voshaar

MAH

ten Klooster

Taal

et al . Dutch translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PROMIS® physical function item bank and cognitive pre-test in Dutch arthritis patients. Arthritis Res Ther 2012; 14: R47.

33.

Parks-Vernizzi

Correia

Arnold

et al . PROMIS® physical function multilingual translations: progress and outlook. Value Health 2015; 18: A744–A745.

34.

Mindrila

Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: a comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. Int J Digit Soc 2010; 1: 60–66.

35.

Bentler

PM.

Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Meth 1998; 3: 424–453.

36.

Straat

van der Ark

Sijtsma

Minimum sample size requirements for Mokken scale analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 2014; 74: 809–822.

37.

Hung

Clegg

Greene

et al . Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res 2011; 29: 947–953.

38.

Bjorner

Rose

Gandek

et al . Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability or validity. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 108–113.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB