Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2013

Psychometric validation of the physician global assessment scale for assessing severity of psoriasis disease activity

Auteurs: J. C. Cappelleri, A. G. Bushmakin, J. Harness, C. Mamolo

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2013

Abstract

Purpose

The Physician Global Assessment (PGA) is a key measure of psoriasis frequently used in clinical trials. A psychometric validation of a three-item (erythema, induration, and scaling) PGA scale was performed using Phase 2 data.

Methods

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the PGA measurement model and appropriateness of equal weighting of the items. PGA test–retest reliability was assessed by estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Internal consistency reliability was gauged by calculating Cronbach’s coefficient α (CCα). Clinically important difference (CID) was defined using the repeated measures model to estimate the relationship between PGA and Patient Global Assessment (PtGA). Known-group, convergent, and divergent validity for the PGA were also assessed.

Results

197 patients with psoriasis were randomized to tofacitinib 2, 5, 15 mg twice daily, or placebo. CFA demonstrated that the PGA measurement model fitted the data using equal weighting of the PGA items. The PGA scale demonstrated good test–retest reliability (ICC > 0.7) and internal consistency reliability (CCα > 0.8). The CID for PGA was estimated at 0.52 (95 % confidence interval: 0.47, 0.56). A robust monotonic relationship between PGA and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) data substantiated known-group validity. Relatively high correlations of PGA with PASI and PtGA data (all correlations >0.5 except at baseline) supported convergent validity; relatively low correlations of PGA with the Pain/Discomfort Assessment and the Ocular Comfort Index supported divergent validity.

Conclusions

The three-item PGA scale has sound psychometric properties with respect to reliability and validity, with equal weighting of the items being appropriate.

vorige artikel Development of a vision-targeted health-related quality of life item measure

volgende artikel Reliability and validity of the English (Singapore) and Chinese (Singapore) versions of the Short-Form 36 version 2 in a multi-ethnic Urban Asian population in Singapore

Fredriksson, T., & Pettersson, U. (1978). Severe psoriasis—Oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica, 157, 238–244.PubMedCrossRef

Feldman, S. R., & Krueger, G. G. (2005). Psoriasis assessment tools in clinical trials. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 64(Suppl 2), ii65–ii68.PubMed

European Medicines Agency. (2004). Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products indicated for the treatment of psoriasis.

Ashcroft, D. M., Wan Po, A. L., Williams, H. C., & Griffiths, C. E. (1999). Clinical measures of disease severity and outcome in psoriasis: A critical appraisal of their quality. British Journal of Dermatology, 141, 185–191.PubMedCrossRef

Langley, R. G., & Ellis, C. N. (2004). Evaluating psoriasis with psoriasis area and severity index, psoriasis global assessment, and lattice system physician’s global assessment. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51, 563–569.PubMedCrossRef

Berth-Jones, J., Grotzinger, K., Rainville, C., et al. (2006). A study examining inter- and intrarater reliability of three scales for measuring severity of psoriasis: Psoriasis area and severity index, physician’s global assessment and lattice system physician’s global assessment. British Journal of Dermatology, 155, 707–713.PubMedCrossRef

Spuls, P. I., Lecluse, L. L. A., Poulsen, M.-L., Bos, J. D., Stern, R. S., & Nijsten, T. (2010). How good are clinical severity and outcome measures for psoriasis? Quantitative evaluation in a systematic review. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 130, 933–943.PubMedCrossRef

Naldi, L. (2010). Scoring and monitoring the severity of psoriasis. What is the preferred method? What is the ideal method? Is PASI passé? facts and controversies. Clinics in Dermatology, 28(1), 67–72.PubMedCrossRef

Naldi, L., Svensson, A., Diepgen, T., et al. (2003). Randomized clinical trials for psoriasis 1977–2000: The EDEN survey. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 120, 738–741.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Robinson, A., Kardos, M., & Kimball, A. B. (2012). Physician global assessment and psoriasis area and severity index: Why do both? A systematic analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 66, 369–375.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Puzenat, E., Bronsard, V., Prey, S., et al. (2010). What are the best outcome measures for assessing plaque psoriasis severity? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 24(Suppl 2), 10–16.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Stern, R. S. (2010). Poor metrics and lost opportunity. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 63, 718–719.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Sloan, J. A., Aaronson, N., Cappelleri, J. C., et al. (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 479–487.PubMed

14.

Papp, K., Menter, A., Strober, B., et al. (2012). Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor, in the treatment of psoriasis: A Phase 2b randomised placebo-controlled dose-ranging study. British Journal of Dermatology, 167, 668–677.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Garduno, J., Bhosle, M. J., Balkrishnan, R., & Feldman, S. R. (2007). Measures used in specifying psoriasis lesion(s), global disease and quality of life: A systematic review. Journal of Dermatological Treatment, 18, 223–242.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Karabulut, A. A., Yalvac, I. S., Vahaboglu, H., et al. (1999). Conjunctival impression cytology and tear-film changes in patients with psoriasis. Cornea, 18, 544–548.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Johnson, M. E., & Murphy, P. J. (2007). Measurement of ocular surface irritation on a linear interval scale with the ocular comfort index. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 48, 4451–4458.CrossRef

18.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

20.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS ^® system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, Nc: SAS Institute Inc.

21.

Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

22.

Fayers, F. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis, and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.

23.

Cappelleri, J. C., & Bushmakin, A. G. (2013). Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research (in press).

24.

King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 11, 171–184.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mulhall, J. O., Goldstein, I., Bushmakin, A., et al. (2007). Validation of the erectile hardness score. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4, 1626–1634.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Deyo, R. A., Inui, T. S., Leininger, J., et al. (1982). Physical and psychosocial function in rheumatoid arthritis: Clinical use of a self-administered health status instrument. Archives of Internal Medicine, 142, 879–882.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

28.

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

29.

Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., et al. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7, 541–546.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Psychometric validation of the physician global assessment scale for assessing severity of psoriasis disease activity
Auteurs: J. C. Cappelleri
A. G. Bushmakin
J. Harness
C. Mamolo
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0384-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2013

Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement

Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

Psychometric evaluation of the CASP-19 quality of life scale in an older Irish cohort

Reliability and validity of the English (Singapore) and Chinese (Singapore) versions of the Short-Form 36 version 2 in a multi-ethnic Urban Asian population in Singapore

Quality-of-life loss of people admitted to burn centers, United States

Satisfaction with oncology care among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers