CONTEXT: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks have been validated for general populations, but their application to high-functioning patient populations remains speculative. OBJECTIVE: To examine the measurement properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, when applied to individuals representing high levels of physical ability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I and III collegiate athletic training rooms and intramural events. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A heterogeneous sample of 215 adults from Division I or Division III collegiate or recreational sports volunteered for this study. Participants were divided into 4 groups depending on sport activity and injury status: healthy collegiate (HC; 33 men, 37 women; age = 19.7 ± 1.1 years), injured and currently active in sport (IP; 21 men, 29 women; age = 19.9 ± 1.2 years), injured and currently not active in sport (INP; 12 men, 18 women; age = 19.7 ± 1.3 years), and healthy recreational (HR; 47 men, 18 women; age = 20.1 ± 1.4 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed 2 assessments: (1) an injury-history questionnaire and (2) the PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, in computer-adaptive form. Mean PROMIS physical function scores were determined for each group. RESULTS: The PROMIS physical function score for the HC group (61.7 ± 6.0) was higher than for the IP (54.9 ± 7.5) and INP (44.1 ± 8.2) groups (P < .001). The IP group had a higher score than the INP group (P < .001). Mean PROMIS scores were not different between the HC and HR participants (mean difference = 1.9, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: The computer-adaptive PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, accurately distinguished injury status in elite-level athletes on a physical function latent trait continuum. Although it was unable to distinguish HC athletes from HR athletes, exposing a possible ceiling effect, it offers potential for use as an outcome instrument for athletic trainers and other sports medicine clinicians.
CONTEXT: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks have been validated for general populations, but their application to high-functioning patient populations remains speculative. OBJECTIVE: To examine the measurement properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, when applied to individuals representing high levels of physical ability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I and III collegiate athletic training rooms and intramural events. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A heterogeneous sample of 215 adults from Division I or Division III collegiate or recreational sports volunteered for this study. Participants were divided into 4 groups depending on sport activity and injury status: healthy collegiate (HC; 33 men, 37 women; age = 19.7 ± 1.1 years), injured and currently active in sport (IP; 21 men, 29 women; age = 19.9 ± 1.2 years), injured and currently not active in sport (INP; 12 men, 18 women; age = 19.7 ± 1.3 years), and healthy recreational (HR; 47 men, 18 women; age = 20.1 ± 1.4 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed 2 assessments: (1) an injury-history questionnaire and (2) the PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, in computer-adaptive form. Mean PROMIS physical function scores were determined for each group. RESULTS: The PROMIS physical function score for the HC group (61.7 ± 6.0) was higher than for the IP (54.9 ± 7.5) and INP (44.1 ± 8.2) groups (P < .001). The IP group had a higher score than the INP group (P < .001). Mean PROMIS scores were not different between the HC and HR participants (mean difference = 1.9, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: The computer-adaptive PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, accurately distinguished injury status in elite-level athletes on a physical function latent trait continuum. Although it was unable to distinguish HC athletes from HR athletes, exposing a possible ceiling effect, it offers potential for use as an outcome instrument for athletic trainers and other sports medicine clinicians.
Entities:
Keywords:
PROMIS; athletic injuries; clinical decision making
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: Johanna M Hoch; Beth Druvenga; Brittany A Ferguson; Megan N Houston; Matthew C Hoch Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Alison R Snyder; John T Parsons; Tamara C Valovich McLeod; R Curtis Bay; Lori A Michener; Eric L Sauers Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: William A Zuke; Avinesh Agarwalla; Beatrice Go; Justin W Griffin; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma; Bernard R Bach; Brian Forsythe Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Arya Minaie; David L Bernholt; Andrew M Block; Ronak M Patel; Rick W Wright; Matthew J Matava; Jeffrey J Nepple Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-08-13
Authors: Stefan F Fischerauer; Mojtaba Talaei-Khoei; Rens Bexkens; David C Ring; Luke S Oh; Ana-Maria Vranceanu Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Sreten Franovic; Collin Schlosser; Eric Guo; Luke Hessburg; Noah A Kuhlmann; Kelechi R Okoroha; Eric C Makhni Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-01-29