Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 10/2019

08-06-2019

Measurement properties of PROMIS short forms for pain and function in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients

Auteurs: Anika Stephan, Jens Mainzer, Danica Kümmel, Franco M. Impellizzeri

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
vorige artikel The reliability and validity of the Chinese Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale in the general population of Hong Kong
volgende artikel Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in adolescence
Literatuur
1.
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Brodsky, J. W., Cheng, C., Ellis, S. J., Franklin, J. D., et al. (2014). Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Foot and Ankle International, 35(6), 592–599.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Latt, L. D., Saltzman, C. L., SooHoo, N. F., Hunt, K. J., et al. (2013). Validation of PROMIS (R) Physical Function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(11), 3466–3474.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Slullitel, G. A. (2017). CORR Insights((R)): PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function scores correlate with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in patients with Hallux Valgus. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475(11), 2781–2782.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, C. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, C. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179.PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
9.
Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W. H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
11.
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(5), 516–526.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
13.
Sierevelt, I. N., Zwiers, R., Schats, W., Haverkamp, D., Terwee, C. B., Nolte, P. A., et al. (2018). Measurement properties of the most commonly used foot- and ankle-specific questionnaires: The FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 26(7), 2059–2073.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Naal, F. D., Impellizzeri, F. M., Huber, M., & Rippstein, P. F. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot and Ankle International, 29(12), 1222–1228.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Schneider, W., & Jurenitsch, S. (2016). Age- and sex-related normative data for the Foot Function Index in a German-speaking cohort. Foot and Ankle International, 37(11), 1238–1242.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Impellizzeri, F. M., Mannion, A. F., Naal, F. D., Hersche, O., & Leunig, M. (2012). The early outcome of surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement: Success depends on how you measure it. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 20(7), 638–645.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Mannion, A. F., Elfering, A., Staerkle, R., Junge, A., Grob, D., Semmer, N. K., et al. (2005). Outcome assessment in low back pain: How low can you go? European Spine Journal, 14(10), 1014–1026.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
19.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
20.
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
21.
Ho, B., Houck, J. R., Flemister, A. S., Ketz, J., Oh, I., DiGiovanni, B. F., et al. (2016). Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot and Ankle International, 37(9), 911–918.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Anderson, M. R., Houck, J. R., Saltzman, C. L., Hung, M., Nickisch, F., Barg, A., et al. (2018). Validation and generalizability of preoperative PROMIS scores to predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot and Ankle International, 39(7), 763–770.PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 900–908.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Jensen, R. E., Potosky, A. L., Reeve, B. B., Hahn, E., Cella, D., Fries, J., et al. (2015). Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(10), 2333–2344.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27–48.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Metagegevens
Titel
Measurement properties of PROMIS short forms for pain and function in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients
Auteurs
Anika Stephan
Jens Mainzer
Danica Kümmel
Franco M. Impellizzeri
Publicatiedatum
08-06-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02221-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2019

Quality of Life Research 10/2019 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Self-stigma predicts lower quality of life in Chinese American breast cancer survivors: exploring the mediating role of intrusive thoughts and posttraumatic growth

OriginalPaper

Cancer-related symptoms, mental well-being, and psychological distress in men diagnosed with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy

OriginalPaper

Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life among patients with coronary artery disease

Commentary

Advancing quality-of-life research by deepening our understanding of response shift: a unifying theory of appraisal

Brief Communication

Evaluation of the responsiveness of Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) in Chinese patients with hypertension in primary care

Editorial

Introduction to “Advancing quality‑of‑life research by deepening our understanding of response shift”