Psychometric Comparison of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT With the FAAM and FFI for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes

Abstract

Background:

Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure–Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM_ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT).

Methods:

Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS’s National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument.

Results:

Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM_ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM_ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, (P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM_ADL showed significant improvement (P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients’ physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement.

Conclusions:

Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments.

Level of Evidence:

Level I, prospective comparative outcome study.

Keywords

patient-reported outcomes FFI FAAM;PROMIS computerized adaptive testing physical function OFAR psychometrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agel

Beskin

Brage

. Reliability of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26: 962-967.

Bond

Fox

. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2013.

Budiman-Mak

Conrad

Stuck

Matters

. Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:519-527.

Budiman-Mak

Conrad

Roach

. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561-570.

Button

Pinney

. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:521-525. doi:10.1177/107110070402500802.

Carcia

Martin

Drouin

. Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2008;43:179.

Carr

. Evidence-based orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1593.

Cella

Gershon

Lai

J-S

Choi

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

Chakravarty

Bjorner

Fries

. Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1426-1431.

10.

Deshpande

Rajan

Sudeepthi

Nazir

. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2:137.

11.

Hung

Baumhauer

Latt

. Validation of PROMIS physical function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3466-3474. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3097-1.

12.

Hung

Carter

Hayden

. Psychometric assessment of the patient activation measure short form (PAM-13) in rural settings. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:521-529.

13.

Hung

Clegg

Greene

Saltzman

. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:947-953. doi:10.1002/jor.21308.

14.

Hung

Clegg

Greene

Weir

Saltzman

. A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:326-335. doi:10.3113/fai.2012.0326.

15.

Hung

Franklin

Hon

. Time for a paradigm shift with computerized adaptive testing of general physical function outcomes measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35:1-7.

16.

Hunt

Hurwit

. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg. 2013;95:e118 111-119. doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.01476.

17.

Linacre

. Understanding Rasch measurement: optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Applied Measurement. 2002;3:85-106.

18.

Martin

Irrgang

. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:72-84.

19.

Martin

Irrgang

Burdett

Conti

Van Swearingen

. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:968-983.

20.

Saag

Saltzman

Brown

Budiman-Mak

. The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 1996;17:506-510. 10.1177/107110079601700814

21.

Smith

Klein

Clohisy

. Lower extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94:468-477. doi:10.2106/jbjs.j.01822.

22.

SooHoo

Samimi

Vyas

Botzler

. Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:38-42. doi:10.1177/107110070602700107.

23.

SooHoo

Vyas

Samini

. Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index, AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:930-934. doi:10.1177/107110070602701111.

24.

Wright

Masters

. Rating scale analysis. Rasch measurement. ERIC; 1982.