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 11/2015

03-06-2015

Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant

Auteurs: Kathryn E. Flynn, Mary Amanda Dew, Li Lin, Maria Fawzy, Felicia L. Graham, Elizabeth A. Hahn, Ron D. Hays, Robert L. Kormos, Honghu Liu, Mary McNulty, Kevin P. Weinfurt

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 11/2015

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 evaluate the reliability and construct validity of measures from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) for patients with heart failure before and after heart transplantation.

Methods

We assessed reliability of the PROMIS short forms using Cronbach’s alpha and the average marginal reliability. To assess the construct validity of PROMIS computerized adaptive tests and short-form measures, we calculated Pearson product moment correlations between PROMIS measures of physical function, fatigue, depression, and social function and existing PRO measures of similar domains (i.e., convergent validity) as well as different domains (i.e., discriminate validity) in patients with heart failure awaiting heart transplant. We evaluated the responsiveness of these measures to change after heart transplant using effect sizes.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included in the analyses. Across the many domains examined, correlations between conceptually similar domains were larger than correlations between different domains of health, demonstrating construct validity. Health status improved substantially after heart transplant (standardized effect sizes, 0.63–1.24), demonstrating the responsiveness of the PROMIS measures. Scores from the computerized adaptive tests and the short forms were similar.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for the reliability and construct validity (including responsiveness to change) of four PROMIS domains in patients with heart failure before and after heart transplant. PROMIS measures are a reasonable choice in this context and will facilitate comparisons across studies and health conditions.
vorige artikel How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery?
volgende artikel Factor structure and construct validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer)
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Barnes, S., Gott, M., Payne, S., Parker, C., Seamark, D., Gariball, S., & Small, N. (2006). Prevalence of symptoms in a community-based sample of heart failure patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 32(3), 208–216.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Dracup, K., Walden, J. A., Stevenson, L. W., & Brecht, M. L. (1992). Quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 11(2 Pt 1), 273–279.PubMed
3.
Rumsfeld, J. S., Alexander, K. P., Goff, D. C, Jr, Graham, M. M., Ho, P. M., Masoudi, F. A., et al. (2013). Cardiovascular health: The importance of measuring patient-reported health status: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(22), 2233–2249.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Garin, O., Herdman, M., Vilagut, G., Ferrer, M., Ribera, A., Rajmil, L., et al. (2014). Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with heart failure: A systematic, standardized comparison of available measures. Heart Failure Reviews, 19(3), 359–367.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rector, T. S., & Cohn, J. N. (1992). Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: Reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group. American Heart Journal, 124(4), 1017–1025.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Green, C. P., Porter, C. B., Bresnahan, D. R., & Spertus, J. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35(5), 1245–1255.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kappelman, M. D., Long, M. D., Martin, C., DeWalt, D. A., Kinneer, P. M., Chen, W., et al. (2014). Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in a large cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 12(8), 1315–1323. e2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
8.
Fries, J. F., Cella, D., Rose, M., Krishnan, E., & Bruce, B. (2009). Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(9), 2061–2066.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., Fries, J. F., & Krishnan, E. (2013). Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of Rheumatic Diseases,. doi:10.​1136/​annrheumdis-2013-204053.
10.
Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (2013). Validity and reliability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 65(10), 1625–1633.
11.
Yost, K. J., Eton, D. T., Garcia, S. F., & Cella, D. (2011). Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(5), 507–516.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
Hahn, E. A., Devellis, R. F., Bode, R. K., Garcia, S. F., Castel, L. D., Eisen, S. V., et al. (2010). Measuring social health in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Item bank development and testing. Quality of Life Research, 19(7), 1035–1044.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., Cella, D., & PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
14.
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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41(11), 1284–1292.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Balke, B. (1963). A simple field test for the assessment of physical fitness. Oklahoma City, OK: Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, Aeromedical Research Division, 1963 Apr. Report No.: 63-6.
19.
ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. (2002). ATS statement: Guidelines for the six-minute walk test. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(1), 111–117.CrossRef
20.
Grady, K. L., & Lanuza, D. M. (2005). Physical functional outcomes after cardiothoracic transplantation. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 20(5 Suppl), S43–S50.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Molzahn, A. E., Burton, J. R., McCormick, P., Modry, D. L., Soetaert, P., & Taylor, P. (1997). Quality of life of candidates for and recipients of heart transplants. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 13(2), 141–146.PubMed
22.
Paris, W., & White-Williams, C. (2005). Social adaptation after cardiothoracic transplantation: a review of the literature. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 20(5 Suppl), S67–S73.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hays, R. D., & Reeve, B. B. (2010). Measurement and modeling of health-related quality of life. In J. Killewo, H. K. Heggenhougen, & S. R. Quah (Eds.), Epidemiology and demography in public health (pp. 195–205). San Diego: Academic Press.
24.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRef
26.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2014). Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: An IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 217–227.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
28.
Hahn, E. A., Rao, D., Cella, D., & Choi, S. W. (2008). Comparability of interview- and self-administration of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) in English- and Spanish-speaking ambulatory cancer patients. Medical Care, 46(4), 423–431.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant
Auteurs
Kathryn E. Flynn
Mary Amanda Dew
Li Lin
Maria Fawzy
Felicia L. Graham
Elizabeth A. Hahn
Ron D. Hays
Robert L. Kormos
Honghu Liu
Mary McNulty
Kevin P. Weinfurt
Publicatiedatum
03-06-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1010-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2015

Quality of Life Research 11/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life after stroke: reliability and validity of the Duke Health Profile for use in Vietnam

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases

OriginalPaper

Construction of a Quality of Life Questionnaire for slowly progressive neuromuscular disease

Brief Communication

Validation of the Community Integration Questionnaire in the adult burn injury population

OriginalPaper

Short-term quality of life in patients undergoing colonic surgery using enhanced recovery after surgery program versus conventional perioperative management

OriginalPaper

Örebro Questionnaire: short and long forms of the Brazilian-Portuguese version