Longitudinal Validation of the PROMIS Physical Function Item Bank in Upper Extremity Trauma

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma - Tập 31 Số 10 - Trang e321-e326 - 2017
Aaron J. Kaat1, Nan Rothrock1, Mark S. Vrahas2, Robert V. O’Toole3, Sarah Buono1, Timothy Zerhusen3, Richard Gershon1
1Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
2Department of Orthopaedics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; and
3R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, MD

Tóm tắt

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (UE-CAT) and the 8-item Physical Function short form (PF-SF8a) for monitoring outcomes after musculoskeletal injuries in upper extremity trauma patients. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Two Level-I trauma centers. Patients: Eligible consecutive patients were approached and 424 consented at time 1 (median 9.7 weeks posttreatment). After 6 months, 132 patients (43% of the 307 eligible) completed follow-up measures. Intervention: Cross-sectional and longitudinal monitoring of upper extremity trauma patients treated with or without surgery. Main Outcome Measurements: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the UE-CAT and PF-SF8a. Internal consistency reliability, convergent validity correlations, and discriminant validity (by fracture severity and dominant/nondominant extremity groups) were calculated for PROMIS and non-PROMIS forms. Floor and ceiling effects were also examined at both assessment occasions. Responsiveness was evaluated using random-intercept mixed effects models and effect sizes. Results: PROMIS measures had excellent reliability, correlated well with legacy measures, and were responsive to treatment. Conclusions: PROMIS measures had good statistical properties. In addition to the known advantages of PROMIS, such as lower patient burden and the ability to assess the broadest range of functioning, our data demonstrated that for patients with upper extremity limitations, a region-specific measure such as the UE-CAT may perform more favorably than an overall/full body physical function measure.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

DeWalt, 2007, Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review, Med Care., 45, S12, 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2

Cella, 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, J Clin Epidemiol., 63, 1179, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011

Rose, 2014, The PROMIS physical function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency, J Clin Epidemiol., 67, 516, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024

Hays, 2013, Upper extremity and mobility subdomains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) adult physical functioning item bank, Arch Phys Med Rehabil., 94, 2291, 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.014

Hung, 2011, Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients, J Orthop Res., 29, 947, 10.1002/jor.21308

Hung, 2014, Psychometric properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank in patients with spinal disorders, Spine, 39, 158, 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000097

Morgan, 2015, PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test compared with other upper extremity outcome measures in the evaluation of proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years, J Orthop Trauma., 29, 257, 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000280

Beckmann, 2015, Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computerized adaptive test in comparison to the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score and simple shoulder test in patients with rotator cuff disease, J Shoulder Elbow Surg., 24, 1961, 10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.025

Hung, 2014, Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients, J Orthop Trauma., 28, 439, 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000059

Doring, 2014, Measurement of upper extremity disability using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system, J Hand Surg Am., 39, 1160, 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.03.013

Wylie, 2014, Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery, World J Orthop., 5, 623, 10.5312/wjo.v5.i5.623

Gershon, 2010, The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research, J Appl Meas., 11, 304

Cohen, 1992, Power primer, Psychol Bull., 112, 155, 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Sijtsma, 2006, Item response theory: past performance, present developments, and future expectations, Behaviormetrika, 33, 75, 10.2333/bhmk.33.75

Wainer, 1999, Comparing the incomparable: an essay on the importance of big assumptions and scant evidence, Educ Meas Issues Pract., 18, 10, 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1999.tb00277.x

Choi, 2010, Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms, Qual Life Res., 19, 125, 10.1007/s11136-009-9560-5

Carstensen, 2004, Comparing and predicting between several methods of measurement, Biostatistics, 5, 399, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxg043

Steiger, 1980, Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix, Psychol Bull., 87, 245, 10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245

Fries, 2011, The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and internet administration, J Rheumatol., 38, 1759, 10.3899/jrheum.110402

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Tập 31 Số 10

e321-e326

Thông tin tác giả