James T Beckmann1, Man Hung1, Jerry Bounsanga1, James D Wylie1, Erin K Granger1, Robert Z Tashjian2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: robert.tashjian@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Test (PF CAT) is a newly developed patient-reported outcome instrument designed by the National Institutes of Health to measure generalized physical function. However, the measurement properties of the PF CAT have not been compared with established shoulder-specific patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients with clinical diagnosis of rotator cuff disease completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and PF CAT. Responses to each of the 3 instruments were statistically analyzed with a Rasch partial credit model. Associations between instruments, convergent validity, item and person reliability, ceiling and floor effects, dimensionality, and survey length were determined. RESULTS: Responses from 187 patients were analyzed. The PF CAT required fewer questions than the ASES or SST (PF CAT, 4.3; ASES, 11; SST, 12). Correlation between all instruments was moderately high. Item reliability was excellent for all instruments, but person reliability of the PF CAT was superior (0.93, excellent) to the SST (0.71, moderate) and ASES (0.48, fair). Ceiling effects were similar among all instruments (PF CAT, 0.53%; SST, 6.1%; ASES, 2.3%). Floor effects were found in 21% of respondents to the SST but in only 3.2% of PF CAT and 2.3% of ASES respondents. CONCLUSION: The measurement properties of the PROMIS PF CAT compared favorably with the ASES and SST despite requiring fewer questions to complete. The PROMIS PF CAT had improved person reliability compared with the ASES score and fewer floor effects compared with the SST.
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Test (PF CAT) is a newly developed patient-reported outcome instrument designed by the National Institutes of Health to measure generalized physical function. However, the measurement properties of the PF CAT have not been compared with established shoulder-specific patient-reported outcomes. METHODS:Patients with clinical diagnosis of rotator cuff disease completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and PF CAT. Responses to each of the 3 instruments were statistically analyzed with a Rasch partial credit model. Associations between instruments, convergent validity, item and person reliability, ceiling and floor effects, dimensionality, and survey length were determined. RESULTS: Responses from 187 patients were analyzed. The PF CAT required fewer questions than the ASES or SST (PF CAT, 4.3; ASES, 11; SST, 12). Correlation between all instruments was moderately high. Item reliability was excellent for all instruments, but person reliability of the PF CAT was superior (0.93, excellent) to the SST (0.71, moderate) and ASES (0.48, fair). Ceiling effects were similar among all instruments (PF CAT, 0.53%; SST, 6.1%; ASES, 2.3%). Floor effects were found in 21% of respondents to the SST but in only 3.2% of PF CAT and 2.3% of ASES respondents. CONCLUSION: The measurement properties of the PROMIS PF CAT compared favorably with the ASES and SST despite requiring fewer questions to complete. The PROMIS PF CAT had improved person reliability compared with the ASES score and fewer floor effects compared with the SST.
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: Casey M Beleckas; Alex Padovano; Jason Guattery; Aaron M Chamberlain; Jay D Keener; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Elizabeth B Gausden; Ashley Levack; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Danielle Sin; David S Wellman; Dean G Lorich Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Benjamin C Service; Jason E Hsu; Jeremy S Somerson; Stacy M Russ; Frederick A Matsen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.176
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: Allen D Nicholson; Hafiz F Kassam; Steven D Pan; Jacob E Berman; Theodore A Blaine; David Kovacevic Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 6.202