References | PROMIS-PF instrument | Population | Score | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
Content validity | ||||
Terwee et al. [24] | PF item bank | General population | ? | Relevance and comprehensiveness not studied |
+ | Sufficient comprehensibility | |||
Oude Voshaar et al. [37] | PF item bank | RA patients | + | Sufficient relevance and comprehensiveness based on linking the item bank to the ICF core set for RA |
? | Comprehensibility not studied | |||
Haan et al. [27] | UE subdomain v2.0 (only 4 newly added items studied) | General population and patients with musculoskeletal upper extremity disorders | ? | Results for comprehensibility and comprehensiveness not reported |
? | 3 out of 4 new items (6.5% of item bank) were considered less relevant or describing unusual activities in the Dutch context. Other items of item bank were not studied so no overall conclusion possible | |||
Structural validity | ||||
Crins et al. [42] | PF item bank | Dutch adults with chronic pain | + | Sufficient unidimensionality (CFI and TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.122) |
+ | Sufficient monotonicity (H ≥ 0.42) | |||
+ | Sufficient local independence: 6% of items were flagged, impact negligible (evidence provided) | |||
Crins et al. [43] | PF item bank | Dutch adults receiving physical therapy | + | Sufficient unidimensionality (CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.045) |
+ | Sufficient monotonicity (all items except one H ≥ 0.30) | |||
? | Indeterminate local independence: 8.2% of items were flagged (no statements on impact) | |||
van Bruggen et al. [45] | UE subdomain | Dutch adults with an injury of the upper extremity | − | Insufficient unidimensionality (CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.09) |
Local independence, monotonicity and model fit not reported.b | ||||
Lameijer et al. [46] | UE subdomain | Dutch adults with injury or disorder of upper extremity | + | Sufficient unidimensionality (FA: CFI en TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.099, SRMR = 0.09 (all insufficient), but exploratory bi-factor analysis: ECV 0.68, Omega coefficient 0.80 (sufficient)) |
+ | Sufficient local independence: 3.3% of items were flagged | |||
+ | Sufficient monotonicity (H = 0.55–0.70) | |||
Hypotheses testing for construct validity | ||||
Oude Voshaar et al. [37] | PF item bank | RA patients | 7 out of 8 hypotheses were met Pearson correlations (with hypothesis): | |
+ | Age: 0.14 (0.10–0.30) | |||
+ | HAQ-DI: 0.76 (> 0.60) | |||
+ | SF36-PF-10: 0.84 (> 0.60) | |||
On 10-point numerical rating scales: | ||||
+ | Pain: − 0.52 (0.30–0.60) | |||
+ | General health: − 0.53 (0.30–0.60) | |||
+ | Disease activity: − 0.46 (0.30–0.60) | |||
+ | Fatigue: − 0.47 (0.30–0.60) | |||
− | Stiffness: − 0.63 (0.30–0.60) | |||
Known-groups validity: no hypothesis | ||||
Crins et al. [42] | PF item bank | Dutch adults with chronic pain | 5 out of 6 hypotheses were met | |
Pearson correlations (with hypothesis): | ||||
+ | PROMIS pain intensity: − 0.73 (< − 0.70) | |||
+ | NDI: − 0.70 (< − 0.50) | |||
+ | DASH: − 0.86 (< − 0.50) | |||
+ | RMDQ: − 0.70 (< − 0.50) | |||
+ | FIQ: − 0.62 (< − 0.50) | |||
− | Global health pain: − 0.62 (− 0.50 < r < − 0.30) | |||
Crins et al. [43] | PF item bank | Dutch adults receiving physical therapy | 2 out of 3 hypotheses were met | |
+ | Pearson correlations (with hypothesis): SF36-PF10: 0.84 (> 0.70) | |||
+ | HAQ-DI: 0.85 (> 0.60) | |||
− | Correlation of SF-36-PF10 higher than HAQ-DI: not met | |||
Total score: 12 out of 15c (80%) | ||||
van Bruggen et al. [45] | UE subdomain | Dutch adults with an injury of the upper extremity | 2 out of 3 hypotheses were met Pearson correlations (with hypothesis): | |
+ | DASH: − 0.84 (< − 0.50) | |||
− | PRWE function: − 0.75 (− 0.50 ≤ r ≤ − 0.30) | |||
+ | MHQ-ADL: 0.73 (r ≥ 0.50d) | |||
Haan et al. [27] | UE subdomain | Dutch patients with musculoskeletal upper extremity disorders | 4 out of 4 hypotheses were met Pearson correlations (with hypothesis): | |
+ | PROMIS pain intensity: − 0.43 (− 0.50 < r ≤ − 0.30) | |||
+ | DASH: − 0.87 (< − 0.50) | |||
+ | FIHOA: − 0.86 (< − 0.50) | |||
+ | MHQ-ADL: 0.87 (> 0.50) | |||
Total score: 4 out of 5e (80%) | ||||
Cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance | ||||
Oude Voshaar et al. [41] | PF item bank | RA patients | ? | Gender: 5.8% of items (no evidence on impact provided) |
+ | Age: 4.1% of items | |||
+ | Language (English): 20.6% of items, impact negligible (evidence provided) | |||
Crins et al. [42] | PF item bank | Dutch adults with chronic pain | + | DIF for gender: none |
+ | DIF for age: 0.8% of items | |||
+ | DIF for language (US English): 3.3% of items | |||
Crins et al. [43] | PF item bank | Dutch adults receiving physical therapy | + | DIF for age: 1.7% of items |
? | DIF for gender: 11.6% of items. Claim that impact is negligible, no evidence provided | |||
Crins et al. [44] | PF item bank | Dutch adults with muscoloskeletal pain Dutch adults with osteoarthritis Dutch adults receiving physical therapy Dutch general population | + | DIF between different patient groups: Chronic pain vs. osteoarthritis: 11.6% of items Chronic pain vs. physiotherapy:1.7% of items Chronic Pain vs. general pop.: 1.7% of items Osteoarthritis vs. physiotherapy: 2.5% of items Osteoarthritis vs. general pop.: 11.6% of items Physiotherapy vs. general pop.: 3.3% of items Overall impact negligible (evidence provided) |
Haan et al. [27] | UE subdomain | Dutch patients with musculoskeletal upper extremity disorders | + | DIF for language (English): 17.4% of items |
Lamerijer et al. [46] | UE subdomain | Dutch adults with injury or disorder of upper extremity | + | Impact negligible (evidence provided).b DIF for age: none |
+ | DIF for gender: 2.2% | |||
+ | DIF for duration of complaints: 6.5% | |||
DIF for language (English): 8.7% | ||||
Impact negligible (evidence provided) | ||||
Internal consistency/measurement precision | ||||
Oude Voshaar et al. [37] | PF item bank | RA patients | + | “precision is high across all levels of physical functioning” (and results can be assumed to be better than the presented evidence for the PROMIS-PF-20, see Table 6) |
Crins et al. [42] | PF item bank | Dutch adults with chronic pain | + | Reliability coefficient > 0.9 between T-scores 28.3–43.1 (1 SD above and below average score) |
Crins et al. [43] | PF item bank | Dutch adults receiving physical therapy | + | Reliability coefficient > 0.9 between T-scores 38.8–57.6 (1 SD above and below average score) |
van Bruggen et al. [45] | UE subdomain | Dutch adults with an injury of the upper extremity | + | Cronbach’s alpha = 0.98 |
Lamijer et al. [46] | UE subdomain | Dutch adults with injury or disorder of upper extremity | + | Reliability coefficient > 0.90 for 95.6% of the patient population |