BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society(®) established a national network for collecting and sharing data on treatment outcomes and improving patient care. One of the network's initiatives is to explore the use of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for patient-level outcome reporting. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether the CAT from the NIH Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System(®) (PROMIS(®)) Physical Function (PF) item bank provides efficient, reliable, valid, precise, and adequately covered point estimates of patients' physical function. METHODS: After informed consent, 288 patients with a mean age of 51 years (range, 18-81 years) undergoing surgery for common foot and ankle problems completed a web-based questionnaire. Efficiency was determined by time for test administration. Reliability was assessed with person and item reliability estimates. Validity evaluation included content validity from expert review and construct validity measured against the PROMIS(®) Pain CAT and patient responses based on tradeoff perceptions. Precision was assessed by standard error of measurement (SEM) across patients' physical function levels. Instrument coverage was based on a person-item map. RESULTS: Average time of test administration was 47 seconds. Reliability was 0.96 for person and 0.99 for item. Construct validity against the Pain CAT had an r value of -0.657 (p < 0.001). Precision had an SEM of less than 3.3 (equivalent to a Cronbach's alpha of ≥ 0.90) across a broad range of function. Concerning coverage, the ceiling effect was 0.32% and there was no floor effect. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS(®) PF CAT appears to be an excellent method for measuring outcomes for patients with foot and ankle surgery. Further validation of the PROMIS(®) item banks may ultimately provide a valid and reliable tool for measuring patient-reported outcomes after injuries and treatment.
BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society(®) established a national network for collecting and sharing data on treatment outcomes and improving patient care. One of the network's initiatives is to explore the use of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for patient-level outcome reporting. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether the CAT from the NIH Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System(®) (PROMIS(®)) Physical Function (PF) item bank provides efficient, reliable, valid, precise, and adequately covered point estimates of patients' physical function. METHODS: After informed consent, 288 patients with a mean age of 51 years (range, 18-81 years) undergoing surgery for common foot and ankle problems completed a web-based questionnaire. Efficiency was determined by time for test administration. Reliability was assessed with person and item reliability estimates. Validity evaluation included content validity from expert review and construct validity measured against the PROMIS(®) PainCAT and patient responses based on tradeoff perceptions. Precision was assessed by standard error of measurement (SEM) across patients' physical function levels. Instrument coverage was based on a person-item map. RESULTS: Average time of test administration was 47 seconds. Reliability was 0.96 for person and 0.99 for item. Construct validity against the PainCAT had an r value of -0.657 (p < 0.001). Precision had an SEM of less than 3.3 (equivalent to a Cronbach's alpha of ≥ 0.90) across a broad range of function. Concerning coverage, the ceiling effect was 0.32% and there was no floor effect. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS(®) PF CAT appears to be an excellent method for measuring outcomes for patients with foot and ankle surgery. Further validation of the PROMIS(®) item banks may ultimately provide a valid and reliable tool for measuring patient-reported outcomes after injuries and treatment.
Authors: Julie Agel; James L Beskin; Michael Brage; Gregory P Guyton; Nancy J Kadel; Charles L Saltzman; Andrew K Sands; Bruce J Sangeorzan; Nelson F SooHoo; Chris C Stroud; David B Thordarson Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Mininder S Kocher; Marilee P Horan; Karen K Briggs; Tyler R Richardson; James O'Holleran; Richard J Hawkins Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: C M Mangione; L Goldman; E J Orav; E R Marcantonio; A Pedan; L E Ludwig; M C Donaldson; D J Sugarbaker; R Poss; T H Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Charles L Saltzman; M Bridget Zimmerman; Michael O'Rourke; Thomas D Brown; Joseph A Buckwalter; Richard Johnston Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mark Glazebrook; Tim Daniels; Alastair Younger; C J Foote; Murray Penner; Kevin Wing; Johnny Lau; Ross Leighton; Michael Dunbar Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Bryce B Reeve; Elizabeth Hahn; David Cella; James Fries; Ashley Wilder Smith; Theresa H M Keegan; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa Paddock; Carol M Moinpour Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Barrett S Boody; Surabhi Bhatt; Aditya S Mazmudar; Wellington K Hsu; Nan E Rothrock; Alpesh A Patel Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2018-01-05
Authors: Jacquelyn S Pennings; Clinton J Devin; Inamullah Khan; Mohamad Bydon; Anthony L Asher; Kristin R Archer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Robert M Cronin; Douglas Conway; David Condon; Rebecca N Jerome; Daniel W Byrne; Paul A Harris Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christopher Sciamanna; Noel H Ballentine; Melissa Bopp; Jennifer S Brach; Vernon M Chinchilli; Joseph T Ciccolo; Molly B Conroy; Abigail Fisher; Edward J Fox; Susan L Greenspan; M Jan De Beur Suzanne; Kalen Kearcher; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Kathleen M McTigue; Edward McAuley; Natalia E Morone; Anuradha Paranjape; Sol Rodriguez-Colon; Andrew Rosenzweig; Joshua M Smyth; Kerry J Stewart; Heather L Stuckey Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: A D Lee; B M Spiegel; R D Hays; G Y Melmed; R Bolus; D Khanna; P P Khanna; L Chang Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Ana-Maria Orbai; Philip J Mease; Maarten de Wit; Umut Kalyoncu; Willemina Campbell; William Tillett; Lihi Eder; Musaab Elmamoun; Oliver FitzGerald; Dafna D Gladman; Niti Goel; Laure Gossec; Chris A Lindsay; Ingrid Steinkoenig; Philip S Helliwell; Neil J McHugh; Vibeke Strand; Alexis Ogdie Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.666