Ann L Gruber-Baldini1, Craig Velozo2, Sergio Romero3, Lisa M Shulman4. 1. Division of Gerontology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 213 Howard Hall, 660 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201-1559, USA. abaldin@som.umaryland.edu. 2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders, Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110S. Paca Street, Rm 3-S-127, Baltimore, MD, 21201-1559, USA. lshulman@som.umaryland.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) was designed to develop, validate, and standardize item banks to measure key domains of physical, mental, and social health in chronic conditions. This paper reports the calibration and validation testing of the PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions measures. METHODS: PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions item banks comprise five domains, Self-Efficacy for Managing: Daily Activities, Symptoms, Medications and Treatments, Emotions, and Social Interactions. Banks were calibrated in 1087 subjects from two data sources: 837 patients with chronic neurologic conditions (epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, neuropathy, Parkinson disease, and stroke) and 250 subjects from an online Internet sample of adults with general chronic conditions. Scores were compared with one legacy scale: Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item scale (SEMCD6) and five PROMIS short forms: Global Health (Physical and Mental), Physical Function, Fatigue, Depression, and Anxiety. RESULTS: The sample was 57% female, mean age = 53.8 (SD = 14.7), 76% white, 21% African American, 6% Hispanic, and 76% with greater than high school education. Full-item banks were created for each domain. All measures had good internal consistency and correlated well with SEMCD6 (r = 0.56-0.75). Significant correlations were seen between the Self-Efficacy measures and other PROMIS short forms (r > 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions measures include five domains of self-efficacy that were calibrated across diverse chronic conditions and show good internal consistency and cross-sectional validity.
PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) was designed to develop, validate, and standardize item banks to measure key domains of physical, mental, and social health in chronic conditions. This paper reports the calibration and validation testing of the PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions measures. METHODS: PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions item banks comprise five domains, Self-Efficacy for Managing: Daily Activities, Symptoms, Medications and Treatments, Emotions, and Social Interactions. Banks were calibrated in 1087 subjects from two data sources: 837 patients with chronic neurologic conditions (epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, neuropathy, Parkinson disease, and stroke) and 250 subjects from an online Internet sample of adults with general chronic conditions. Scores were compared with one legacy scale: Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item scale (SEMCD6) and five PROMIS short forms: Global Health (Physical and Mental), Physical Function, Fatigue, Depression, and Anxiety. RESULTS: The sample was 57% female, mean age = 53.8 (SD = 14.7), 76% white, 21% African American, 6% Hispanic, and 76% with greater than high school education. Full-item banks were created for each domain. All measures had good internal consistency and correlated well with SEMCD6 (r = 0.56-0.75). Significant correlations were seen between the Self-Efficacy measures and other PROMIS short forms (r > 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions measures include five domains of self-efficacy that were calibrated across diverse chronic conditions and show good internal consistency and cross-sectional validity.
Authors: Dennis A Revicki; Karon F Cook; Dagmar Amtmann; Neesha Harnam; Wen-Hung Chen; Francis J Keefe Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ickpyo Hong; Craig A Velozo; Chih-Ying Li; Sergio Romero; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Lisa M Shulman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sonal J Patil; Nuha K Wareg; Kelvin L Hodges; Jamie B Smith; Mark S Kaiser; Michael L LeFevre Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Steven P Reise; Donna M Zulman; Eleanor T Lewis; Rachel Kimerling Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Susan M Love; Jessica N Clague DeHart; Alexandra Jorge-Miller; Leah Eshraghi; Heather Cooper Ortner; Annette L Stanton Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Doris Howell; Deborah K Mayer; Richard Fielding; Manuela Eicher; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Christoffer Johansen; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Claire Foster; Raymond Chan; Catherine M Alfano; Shawna V Hudson; Michael Jefford; Wendy W T Lam; Victoria Loerzel; Gabriella Pravettoni; Elke Rammant; Lidia Schapira; Kevin D Stein; Bogda Koczwara Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506