OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of known-group validity, ecological validity, and test-retest reliability of 4 domain instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. METHODS: We recruited an OA sample and a comparison general population (GP) sample through an internet survey panel. Pain intensity, pain interference, physical functioning, and fatigue were assessed for 4 consecutive weeks with PROMIS short forms on a daily basis and compared with same-domain Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) instruments that use a 7-day recall. Known-group validity (comparison of OA and GP), ecological validity (comparison of aggregated daily measures with CAT instruments), and test-retest reliability were evaluated. RESULTS: The recruited samples matched the demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, and ethnicity) of the US sample for arthritis and the 2009 Census for the GP. Compliance with repeated measurements was excellent at >95%. Known-group validity for CATs was demonstrated with large effect sizes (pain intensity 1.42, pain interference 1.25, and fatigue 0.85). Ecological validity was also established through high correlations between aggregated daily measures and weekly CATs (≥0.86). Test-retest validity (7-day) was very good (≥0.80). CONCLUSION: PROMIS CAT instruments demonstrated known-group and ecological validity in a comparison of OA patients with a GP sample. Adequate test-retest reliability was also observed. These data provide encouraging initial data on the utility of these PROMIS instruments for clinical and research outcomes in OA patients.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of known-group validity, ecological validity, and test-retest reliability of 4 domain instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. METHODS: We recruited an OA sample and a comparison general population (GP) sample through an internet survey panel. Pain intensity, pain interference, physical functioning, and fatigue were assessed for 4 consecutive weeks with PROMIS short forms on a daily basis and compared with same-domain Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) instruments that use a 7-day recall. Known-group validity (comparison of OA and GP), ecological validity (comparison of aggregated daily measures with CAT instruments), and test-retest reliability were evaluated. RESULTS: The recruited samples matched the demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, and ethnicity) of the US sample for arthritis and the 2009 Census for the GP. Compliance with repeated measurements was excellent at >95%. Known-group validity for CATs was demonstrated with large effect sizes (pain intensity 1.42, pain interference 1.25, and fatigue 0.85). Ecological validity was also established through high correlations between aggregated daily measures and weekly CATs (≥0.86). Test-retest validity (7-day) was very good (≥0.80). CONCLUSION: PROMIS CAT instruments demonstrated known-group and ecological validity in a comparison of OA patients with a GP sample. Adequate test-retest reliability was also observed. These data provide encouraging initial data on the utility of these PROMIS instruments for clinical and research outcomes in OA patients.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jennifer M Bombard; Kenneth E Powell; Linda M Martin; Charles G Helmick; William H Wilson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ingo R Titze; Tobias Riede; Anil Palaparthi; Linda S Hynan; Amy Hamilton; Laura Toles; Ted Mau Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Teresa A Lillis; John Burns; Frances Aranda; Yanina A Purim-Shem-Tov; Stephen Bruehl; Jean C Beckham; Stevan E Hobfoll Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Casey M Beleckas; Jason Guattery; Aaron M Chamberlain; Taleef Khan; Michael P Kelly; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2018-12-15 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: David M Condon; Robert Chapman; Sara Shaunfield; Michael A Kallen; Jennifer L Beaumont; Daniel Eek; Debanjali Mitra; Katy L Benjamin; Kelly McQuarrie; Jamae Liu; James W Shaw; Allison Martin Nguyen; Karen Keating; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Mary Amanda Dew; Li Lin; Maria Fawzy; Felicia L Graham; Elizabeth A Hahn; Ron D Hays; Robert L Kormos; Honghu Liu; Mary McNulty; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Augustine C Lee; Jeffrey B Driban; Lori Lyn Price; William F Harvey; Angie Mae Rodday; Chenchen Wang Journal: J Pain Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Molly Elizabeth Marino; Mark Meterko; Elizabeth E Marfeo; Christine M McDonough; Alan M Jette; Pengsheng Ni; Kara Bogusz; Elizabeth K Rasch; Diane E Brandt; Leighton Chan Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Pamela L Wolters; Staci Martin; Vanessa L Merker; James H Tonsgard; Sondra E Solomon; Andrea Baldwin; Amanda L Bergner; Karin Walsh; Heather L Thompson; Kathy L Gardner; Cynthia M Hingtgen; Elizabeth Schorry; William N Dudley; Barbara Franklin Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 9.910