David Cella1, Seung W Choi2, David M Condon3, Ben Schalet4, Ron D Hays5, Nan E Rothrock4, Susan Yount4, Karon F Cook4, Richard C Gershon4, Dagmar Amtmann6, Darren A DeWalt7, Paul A Pilkonis8, Arthur A Stone9, Kevin Weinfurt10, Bryce B Reeve10. 1. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: d-cella@northwestern.edu. 2. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 3. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA. 4. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 8. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for valid self-report measures of core health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains. OBJECTIVE: To derive brief, reliable and valid health profile measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) item banks. METHODS: Literature review, investigator consensus process, item response theory (IRT) analysis, and expert review of scaling results from multiple PROMIS data sets. We developed 3 profile measures ranging in length from 29 to 57 questions. These profiles assess important HRQoL domains with highly informative subsets of items from respective item banks and yield reliable information across mild-to-severe levels of HRQoL experiences. Each instrument assesses the domains of pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, physical function, and social function using 4-, 6-, and 8-item short forms for each domain, and an average pain intensity domain score, using a 0-10 numeric rating scale. RESULTS: With few exceptions, all domain short forms within the profile measures were highly reliable across at least 3 standard deviation (30 T-score) units and were strongly correlated with the full bank scores. Construct validity with ratings of general health and quality of life was demonstrated. Information to inform statistical power for clinical and general population samples is also provided. CONCLUSIONS: Although these profile measures have been used widely, with summary scoring routines published, description of their development, reliability, and initial validity has not been published until this article. Further evaluation of these measures and clinical applications are encouraged.
BACKGROUND: There is a need for valid self-report measures of core health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains. OBJECTIVE: To derive brief, reliable and valid health profile measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) item banks. METHODS: Literature review, investigator consensus process, item response theory (IRT) analysis, and expert review of scaling results from multiple PROMIS data sets. We developed 3 profile measures ranging in length from 29 to 57 questions. These profiles assess important HRQoL domains with highly informative subsets of items from respective item banks and yield reliable information across mild-to-severe levels of HRQoL experiences. Each instrument assesses the domains of pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, physical function, and social function using 4-, 6-, and 8-item short forms for each domain, and an average pain intensity domain score, using a 0-10 numeric rating scale. RESULTS: With few exceptions, all domain short forms within the profile measures were highly reliable across at least 3 standard deviation (30 T-score) units and were strongly correlated with the full bank scores. Construct validity with ratings of general health and quality of life was demonstrated. Information to inform statistical power for clinical and general population samples is also provided. CONCLUSIONS: Although these profile measures have been used widely, with summary scoring routines published, description of their development, reliability, and initial validity has not been published until this article. Further evaluation of these measures and clinical applications are encouraged.
Authors: Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros; Neil Fine; Edward Buchel; Gayle M Gordillo; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Ji Qi; Claudia Albornoz; Anne F Klassen; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Patrick Janulis; Michele D Kipke; Brian Mustanski; Steven Shoptaw; Richard Moore; Marianna Baum; Soyeon Kim; Suzanne Siminski; Amy Ragsdale; Pamina M Gorbach Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-11
Authors: Kyle B Kosik; Nathan F Johnson; Masafumi Terada; Abbey C Thomas-Fenwick; Carl G Mattacola; Phillip A Gribble Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Tianxin Pan; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney; Richard Norman; An Tran-Duy; Janel Hanmer; Nancy Devlin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Alison Curfman; S David McSwain; John Chuo; Brooke Yeager-McSwain; Dana A Schinasi; James Marcin; Neil Herendeen; Sandy L Chung; Karen Rheuban; Christina A Olson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Heather E Whitson; Donna Crabtree; Carl F Pieper; Christine Ha; Sandra Au; Miles Berger; Harvey J Cohen; Jody Feld; Patrick Smith; Katherine Hall; Daniel Parker; Virginia Byers Kraus; William E Kraus; Kenneth Schmader; Cathleen Colón-Emeric Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 5.562