Anika Stephan1, Jens Mainzer2,3, Danica Kümmel4, Franco M Impellizzeri4,5. 1. Department of Teaching, Research and Development- Lower Extremities, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. anika.stephan@kws.ch. 2. Foot and Ankle Surgery, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. IN MOTION, Richtiarkade 23, 8304, Wallisellen, Switzerland. 4. Department of Teaching, Research and Development- Lower Extremities, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the measurement properties of the German PROMIS short forms for pain intensity (PAIN), pain interference (PI) and physical function (PF) in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients. METHODS: Patient-rated outcomes were collected from consecutive patients of our foot and ankle registry before and 6 months after surgery. Measurement properties were tested according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The German Foot Function Index (FFI-D) served as a legacy measure. RESULTS: 748 patients were included in our cross-sectional sample. Longitudinal and test-retest data were available for 202 and 65 patients, respectively. Construct validity of all short forms was good. All Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation coefficients were > 0.7. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was highest for PF (8.9) and lowest for PI (6.5). Minimal important change was 4 to 5 points and thus smaller than SDC for all instruments. We observed a baseline ceiling effect for PF. PI showed insufficiently correlated change scores with FFI-D disability change scores, and therefore failed the responsiveness testing. CONCLUSION: Our study showed some adequate psychometric properties, but also certain aspects regarding interpretability and responsiveness that researchers must be aware of when using PROMIS short forms of pain and function in foot and ankle surgery patients.
PURPOSE: To examine the measurement properties of the German PROMIS short forms for pain intensity (PAIN), pain interference (PI) and physical function (PF) in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients. METHODS:Patient-rated outcomes were collected from consecutive patients of our foot and ankle registry before and 6 months after surgery. Measurement properties were tested according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The German Foot Function Index (FFI-D) served as a legacy measure. RESULTS: 748 patients were included in our cross-sectional sample. Longitudinal and test-retest data were available for 202 and 65 patients, respectively. Construct validity of all short forms was good. All Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation coefficients were > 0.7. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was highest for PF (8.9) and lowest for PI (6.5). Minimal important change was 4 to 5 points and thus smaller than SDC for all instruments. We observed a baseline ceiling effect for PF. PI showed insufficiently correlated change scores with FFI-D disability change scores, and therefore failed the responsiveness testing. CONCLUSION: Our study showed some adequate psychometric properties, but also certain aspects regarding interpretability and responsiveness that researchers must be aware of when using PROMIS short forms of pain and function in foot and ankle surgery patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Function; PROMIS; Pain; Psychometric validation; Short forms
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 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: Dagmar Amtmann; Karon F Cook; Mark P Jensen; Wen-Hung Chen; Seung Choi; Dennis Revicki; David Cella; Nan Rothrock; Francis Keefe; Leigh Callahan; Jin-Shei Lai Journal: Pain Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Aditya V Karhade; David N Bernstein; Vineet Desai; Hany S Bedair; Evan A O'Donnell; Miho J Tanaka; Christopher M Bono; Mitchel B Harris; Joseph H Schwab; Daniel G Tobert Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Aoife MacMahon; Elizabeth A Cody; Kristin Caolo; Jensen K Henry; Mark C Drakos; Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Aleksander Savenkov; Scott J Ellis Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; John Devin Peipert; Robert Chapman; Jin-Shei Lai; Berend Terluin; David Cella; Philip Griffith; Lidwine B Mokkink Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 4.147