Roxanne E Jensen1, Arnold L Potosky2, Bryce B Reeve3,4, Elizabeth Hahn5, David Cella5, James Fries6, Ashley Wilder Smith7, Theresa H M Keegan8,9, Xiao-Cheng Wu10, Lisa Paddock11, Carol M Moinpour12. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. rj222@georgetown.edu. 2. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 7. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 8. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, USA. 9. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 10. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA. 11. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 12. Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function measures in a diverse, population-based cancer sample. METHODS: Cancer patients 6-13 months post-diagnosis (n = 4840) were recruited for the Measuring Your Health study. Participants were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or cancers of the colorectum, lung, breast, uterus, cervix, or prostate. Four PROMIS physical function short forms (4a, 6b, 10a, and 16) were evaluated for validity and reliability across age and race-ethnicity groups. Covariates included gender, marital status, education level, cancer site and stage, comorbidities, and functional status. RESULTS: PROMIS physical function short forms showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92-0.96), convergent validity (fatigue, pain interference, FACT physical well-being all r ≥ 0.68), and discriminant validity (unrelated domains all r ≤ 0.3) across survey short forms, age, and race-ethnicity. Known-group differences by demographic, clinical, and functional characteristics performed as hypothesized. Ceiling effects for higher-functioning individuals were identified on most forms. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence that PROMIS physical function measures are valid and reliable in multiple race-ethnicity and age groups. Researchers selecting specific PROMIS short forms should consider the degree of functional disability in their patient population to ensure that length and content are tailored to limit response burden.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function measures in a diverse, population-based cancer sample. METHODS:Cancerpatients 6-13 months post-diagnosis (n = 4840) were recruited for the Measuring Your Health study. Participants were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or cancers of the colorectum, lung, breast, uterus, cervix, or prostate. Four PROMIS physical function short forms (4a, 6b, 10a, and 16) were evaluated for validity and reliability across age and race-ethnicity groups. Covariates included gender, marital status, education level, cancer site and stage, comorbidities, and functional status. RESULTS: PROMIS physical function short forms showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92-0.96), convergent validity (fatigue, pain interference, FACT physical well-being all r ≥ 0.68), and discriminant validity (unrelated domains all r ≤ 0.3) across survey short forms, age, and race-ethnicity. Known-group differences by demographic, clinical, and functional characteristics performed as hypothesized. Ceiling effects for higher-functioning individuals were identified on most forms. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence that PROMIS physical function measures are valid and reliable in multiple race-ethnicity and age groups. Researchers selecting specific PROMIS short forms should consider the degree of functional disability in their patient population to ensure that length and content are tailored to limit response burden.
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: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Linda C Harlan; Charles F Lynch; Theresa H M Keegan; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Ikuko Kato; Michele M West; Rosemary D Cress; Stephen M Schwartz; Ashley W Smith; Dennis Deapen; Sonja M Stringer; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: An Ngo-Huang; Nathan H Parker; Xuemei Wang; Maria Q B Petzel; David Fogelman; Keri L Schadler; Eduardo Bruera; Jason B Fleming; Jeffrey E Lee; Matthew H G Katz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 3.445
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: 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: Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Carol M Moinpour; Tania Lobo; David Cella; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Thissen; Ashley Wilder Smith; Jaeil Ahn; George Luta; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Roxanne E Jensen; Carol M Moinpour; Arnold L Potosky; Tania Lobo; Elizabeth A Hahn; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Theresa H M Keegan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; David T Eton Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 6.860
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
Authors: Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Julie J Ruterbusch; Felicity W K Harper; Tara M Baird; David G Finlay; Andrew G Rundle; Stephanie S Pandolfi; Theresa A Hastert; Kendra L Schwartz; Gerold Bepler; Michael S Simon; Julia Mantey; Judy Abrams; Teri L Albrecht; Ann G Schwartz Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 6.860