Karon F Cook1, Sally E Jensen2, Benjamin D Schalet3, Jennifer L Beaumont3, Dagmar Amtmann4, Susan Czajkowski5, Darren A Dewalt6, James F Fries7, Paul A Pilkonis8, Bryce B Reeve9, Arthur A Stone10, Kevin P Weinfurt11, David Cella3. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 633 N. St. Clair, 19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. Electronic address: karon.cook@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 633 N. St. Clair, 19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, USA; Department of Surgery (Division of Organ Transplant), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 251 E. Huron, Galter 3-150, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 633 N. St. Clair, 19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, 4907 25th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. 5. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Building 31, Room 5A52, 31 Center Drive MSC 2486, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, CB# 7590, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Dr H3580, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. 9. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7590, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA. 10. University of Southern California, 635 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA 9008, USA. 11. Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of a series of studies in which the clinical validity of the National Institutes of Health's Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (NIH; PROMIS) measures was evaluated, by domain, across six clinical populations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Approximately 1,500 individuals at baseline and 1,300 at follow-up completed PROMIS measures. The analyses reported in this issue were conducted post hoc, pooling data across six previous studies, and accommodating the different designs of the six, within-condition, parent studies. Changes in T-scores, standardized response means, and effect sizes were calculated in each study. When a parent study design allowed, known groups validity was calculated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: The results provide substantial support for the clinical validity of nine PROMIS measures in a range of chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The cross-condition focus of the analyses provided a unique and multifaceted perspective on how PROMIS measures function in "real-world" clinical settings and provides external anchors that can support comparative effectiveness research. The current body of clinical validity evidence for the nine PROMIS measures indicates the success of NIH PROMIS in developing measures that are effective across a range of chronic conditions.
OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of a series of studies in which the clinical validity of the National Institutes of Health's Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (NIH; PROMIS) measures was evaluated, by domain, across six clinical populations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Approximately 1,500 individuals at baseline and 1,300 at follow-up completed PROMIS measures. The analyses reported in this issue were conducted post hoc, pooling data across six previous studies, and accommodating the different designs of the six, within-condition, parent studies. Changes in T-scores, standardized response means, and effect sizes were calculated in each study. When a parent study design allowed, known groups validity was calculated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: The results provide substantial support for the clinical validity of nine PROMIS measures in a range of chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The cross-condition focus of the analyses provided a unique and multifaceted perspective on how PROMIS measures function in "real-world" clinical settings and provides external anchors that can support comparative effectiveness research. The current body of clinical validity evidence for the nine PROMIS measures indicates the success of NIH PROMIS in developing measures that are effective across a range of chronic conditions.
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: Dennis A Revicki; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Jeff A Sloan; William R Lenderking; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2006-09-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Gadi Gilam; John A Sturgeon; Dokyoung S You; Ajay D Wasan; Beth D Darnall; Sean C Mackey Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Claire E H Barber; JoAnn Zell; Jinoos Yazdany; Aileen M Davis; Laura Cappelli; Linda Ehrlich-Jones; Donna Everix; J Carter Thorne; Victoria Bohm; Lisa Suter; Alex Limanni; Kaleb Michaud Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.794
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; 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: Benjamin D Schalet; Ron D Hays; Sally E Jensen; Jennifer L Beaumont; James F Fries; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 6.437