Irene L Katzan1, Brittany Lapin2. 1. From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (I.L.K., B.L.) and Cerebrovascular Center (I.L.K.), Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH. katzani@ccf.org. 2. From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (I.L.K., B.L.) and Cerebrovascular Center (I.L.K.), Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recently included the 10-item PROMIS GH (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health) scale as part of their recommended Standard Set of Stroke Outcome Measures. Before collection of PROMIS GH is broadly implemented, it is necessary to assess its performance in the stroke population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMIS GH in patients with ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. METHODS: PROMIS GH and 6 PROMIS domain scales measuring same/similar constructs were electronically collected on 1102 patients with ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes at various stages of recovery from their stroke who were seen in a cerebrovascular clinic from October 12, 2015, through June 2, 2017. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the adequacy of 2-factor structure of component scores. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of PROMIS GH items and component scores were assessed. Discriminant validity and responsiveness were compared between PROMIS GH and PROMIS domain scales measuring the same or related constructs. Analyses were repeated stratified by stroke subtype and modified Rankin Scale score <2 versus ≥2. RESULTS: There was moderate internal reliability (ordinal α, 0.82-0.88) and marginal model fit for the 2-factor solution for component scores (root mean square error of approximation, 0.11). Convergent validity was good with significant correlations between all PROMIS GH items and PROMIS domain scales (P<0.001 for all). There was excellent discrimination for all PROMIS GH items and component scores across modified Rankin Scale levels. Good responsiveness (effect size, >0.5) was demonstrated for 8 of the 10 PROMIS GH items. Reliability and validity remained consistent across stroke subtype and disability level (modified Rankin Scale, <2 versus ≥2). CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS GH exhibits acceptable performance in patients with stroke. Our findings support International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recommendation to use PROMIS GH as part of the standard set of outcome measures in stroke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recently included the 10-item PROMIS GH (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health) scale as part of their recommended Standard Set of Stroke Outcome Measures. Before collection of PROMIS GH is broadly implemented, it is necessary to assess its performance in the stroke population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMIS GH in patients with ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. METHODS: PROMIS GH and 6 PROMIS domain scales measuring same/similar constructs were electronically collected on 1102 patients with ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes at various stages of recovery from their stroke who were seen in a cerebrovascular clinic from October 12, 2015, through June 2, 2017. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the adequacy of 2-factor structure of component scores. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of PROMIS GH items and component scores were assessed. Discriminant validity and responsiveness were compared between PROMIS GH and PROMIS domain scales measuring the same or related constructs. Analyses were repeated stratified by stroke subtype and modified Rankin Scale score <2 versus ≥2. RESULTS: There was moderate internal reliability (ordinal α, 0.82-0.88) and marginal model fit for the 2-factor solution for component scores (root mean square error of approximation, 0.11). Convergent validity was good with significant correlations between all PROMIS GH items and PROMIS domain scales (P<0.001 for all). There was excellent discrimination for all PROMIS GH items and component scores across modified Rankin Scale levels. Good responsiveness (effect size, >0.5) was demonstrated for 8 of the 10 PROMIS GH items. Reliability and validity remained consistent across stroke subtype and disability level (modified Rankin Scale, <2 versus ≥2). CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS GH exhibits acceptable performance in patients with stroke. Our findings support International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recommendation to use PROMIS GH as part of the standard set of outcome measures in stroke.
Authors: Daniëlla M Oosterveer; Henk Arwert; Caroline B Terwee; Jan W Schoones; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Johannes Knauer; Yannik Terhorst; Paula Philippi; Selina Kallinger; Sandro Eiler; Reinhold Kilian; Tamara Waldmann; Morten Moshagen; Martina Bader; Harald Baumeister Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Irene L Katzan; Nicolas R Thompson; Harneet K Walia; Douglas E Moul; Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Nicolas R Thompson; Andrew Schuster; Ryan Honomichl; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Bradley Weaver; Matthew Maas; Thomas P Bleck; Stephen VanHaerents; Stephan U Schuele Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Irene L Katzan; Andrew Schuster; Lynn Daboul; Christine Doherty; Sidra Speaker; Ken Uchino; Brittany Lapin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01