PURPOSE: To derive from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) fatigue item bank, a short form for individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), the PROMIS-Fatigue(MS). METHODS: A panel of 37 clinicians and 46 individuals with MS ranked the relevance of PROMIS fatigue items to persons with MS. Eight items were selected for the PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) that maximized relevance rankings, content coverage, and item discrimination. The PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) and an existing, 7-item PROMIS fatigue short form (PROMIS-Fatigue(SFv1.0)) were administered to a new sample of 231 individuals with MS. Known groups and content validity were assessed. RESULTS: Scores from the short forms were highly correlated (r = 0.92). Discriminant validity of the PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) scores was supported in known groups comparisons. Scores of neither short form exhibited an advantage in quantitative analyses. The PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) targeted more of the content included in participants' responses to open-ended questions than did the PROMIS-Fatigue(SFv1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) was derived to have content validity in MS samples. The validity of the measure was further supported by the ability of PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) items to discriminate among groups expected to differ in levels of fatigue. We recommend its use in measuring the fatigue of individuals with MS.
PURPOSE: To derive from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) fatigue item bank, a short form for individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), the PROMIS-Fatigue(MS). METHODS: A panel of 37 clinicians and 46 individuals with MS ranked the relevance of PROMIS fatigue items to persons with MS. Eight items were selected for the PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) that maximized relevance rankings, content coverage, and item discrimination. The PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) and an existing, 7-item PROMIS fatigue short form (PROMIS-Fatigue(SFv1.0)) were administered to a new sample of 231 individuals with MS. Known groups and content validity were assessed. RESULTS: Scores from the short forms were highly correlated (r = 0.92). Discriminant validity of the PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) scores was supported in known groups comparisons. Scores of neither short form exhibited an advantage in quantitative analyses. The PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) targeted more of the content included in participants' responses to open-ended questions than did the PROMIS-Fatigue(SFv1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) was derived to have content validity in MS samples. The validity of the measure was further supported by the ability of PROMIS-Fatigue(MS) items to discriminate among groups expected to differ in levels of fatigue. We recommend its use in measuring the fatigue of individuals with MS.
Authors: William T Riley; Nan Rothrock; Bonnie Bruce; Christopher Christodolou; Karon Cook; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Barbara Given; Charles W Given; Alla Sikorskii; Sangchoon Jeon; Ruth McCorkle; Victoria Champion; David Decker Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Karon F Cook; Alyssa M Bamer; Toni S Roddey; George H Kraft; Jiseon Kim; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 1.784
Authors: Karen E Schifferdecker; Susan E Yount; Karen Kaiser; Anna Adachi-Mejia; David Cella; Kathleen L Carluzzo; Amy Eisenstein; Michael A Kallen; George J Greene; David T Eton; Elliott S Fisher Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Pierre Michel; Pascal Auquier; Karine Baumstarck; Jean Pelletier; Anderson Loundou; Badih Ghattas; Laurent Boyer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Wendy J Coster; Pengsheng Ni; Mary D Slavin; Pamela A Kisala; Ratna Nandakumar; Mary Jane Mulcahey; David S Tulsky; Alan M Jette Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Julie M Cessna; Heather S L Jim; Steven K Sutton; Yasmin Asvat; Brent J Small; John M Salsman; Babu Zachariah; Mayer Fishman; Teresa Field; Hugo Fernandez; Lia Perez; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.006