OBJECTIVE: To improve the assessment of physical function by enhancing precision of physical function assessment as it pertains to subjects at extreme ends of the health continuum (i.e., subjects with extremely poor function ["floor"] or extremely good health ["ceiling"]). METHODS: Under the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (a National Institutes of Health initiative), we developed new items to assess floor and ceiling physical function in order to supplement the existing item bank. Using item response theory and standard PROMIS methodology, we developed 31 floor items and 31 ceiling items and administered the items during a 12-month prospective, observational study of 737 subjects whose health status was at either extreme. Effect size was calculated and change over time was compared across anchor instruments and across items. Using the observed changes in scores, we back-calculated sample size requirements for the new and comparison measures. RESULTS: We studied 444 subjects who had been diagnosed as having a chronic illness and/or were of old age and 293 generally fit subjects (including athletes in training). Item response theory analyses confirmed that the new floor and ceiling items outperformed reference items (P < 0.001). The estimated post hoc sample size requirements were reduced by a factor of 2-4 for the floor population and a factor of 2 for the ceiling population. CONCLUSION: Extending the range of items by which physical function is measured can substantially improve measurement quality, reduce sample size requirements, and improve research efficiency. The paradigm shift from assessing disability to assessing physical function focuses assessment on the entire spectrum of physical function, signals improvement in the conceptual base of outcome assessment, and may be transformative as medical goals more closely approach societal goals for health.
OBJECTIVE: To improve the assessment of physical function by enhancing precision of physical function assessment as it pertains to subjects at extreme ends of the health continuum (i.e., subjects with extremely poor function ["floor"] or extremely good health ["ceiling"]). METHODS: Under the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (a National Institutes of Health initiative), we developed new items to assess floor and ceiling physical function in order to supplement the existing item bank. Using item response theory and standard PROMIS methodology, we developed 31 floor items and 31 ceiling items and administered the items during a 12-month prospective, observational study of 737 subjects whose health status was at either extreme. Effect size was calculated and change over time was compared across anchor instruments and across items. Using the observed changes in scores, we back-calculated sample size requirements for the new and comparison measures. RESULTS: We studied 444 subjects who had been diagnosed as having a chronic illness and/or were of old age and 293 generally fit subjects (including athletes in training). Item response theory analyses confirmed that the new floor and ceiling items outperformed reference items (P < 0.001). The estimated post hoc sample size requirements were reduced by a factor of 2-4 for the floor population and a factor of 2 for the ceiling population. CONCLUSION: Extending the range of items by which physical function is measured can substantially improve measurement quality, reduce sample size requirements, and improve research efficiency. The paradigm shift from assessing disability to assessing physical function focuses assessment on the entire spectrum of physical function, signals improvement in the conceptual base of outcome assessment, and may be transformative as medical goals more closely approach societal goals for health.
Authors: John E Ware; Mark Kosinski; Jakob B Bjorner; Martha S Bayliss; Alice Batenhorst; Carl G H Dahlöf; Stewart Tepper; Andrew Dowson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ron D Hays; Karen L Spritzer; Dagmar Amtmann; Jin-Shei Lai; Esi Morgan Dewitt; Nan Rothrock; Darren A Dewalt; William T Riley; James F Fries; Eswar Krishnan Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Eswar Krishnan; Esi Morgan Dewitt; Puja P Khanna; Brennan Spiegel; Ron D Hays Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.794
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: 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: Keenan A Ramsey; Carel G M Meskers; Marijke C Trappenburg; Maria Giulia Bacalini; Massimo Delledonne; Paolo Garagnani; Carolyn Greig; Victor Kallen; Nico van Meeteren; Natal van Riel; Nadine Correia Santos; Sarianna Sipilä; Janice L Thompson; Anna C Whittaker; Andrea B Maier Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-05-31
Authors: Jennifer L Guida; Tim A Ahles; Daniel Belsky; Judith Campisi; Harvey Jay Cohen; James DeGregori; Rebecca Fuldner; Luigi Ferrucci; Lisa Gallicchio; Leonid Gavrilov; Natalia Gavrilova; Paige A Green; Chamelli Jhappan; Ronald Kohanski; Kevin Krull; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Kirsten K Ness; Ann O'Mara; Nathan Price; Jennifer Schrack; Stephanie Studenski; Olga Theou; Russell P Tracy; Arti Hurria Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Johannes M Giesinger; Nicolas Kesterke; David F Hamilton; Bernhard Holzner; Bernhard Jost; Karlmeinrad Giesinger Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Louise Klokker; Caroline B Terwee; Eva Ejlersen Wæhrens; Marius Henriksen; Sandra Nolte; Gregor Liegl; Margreet Kloppenburg; Rene Westhoven; Ruth Wittoek; Ingvild Kjeken; Ida K Haugen; Ben Schalet; Richard Gershon; Henning Bliddal; Robin Christensen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martijn A H Oude Voshaar; Peter M Ten Klooster; Harald E Vonkeman; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Marilyn Heng; Xiaodan Tang; Benjamin D Schalet; Austin K Collins; Antonia F Chen; Christopher M Melnic; Todd M O'Brien; Rachel C Sisodia; Patricia D Franklin; David Cella Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.176