Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality of measurement properties and summary of the evidence for the item bank and subdomains

From: Measurement properties of the Dutch–Flemish patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function item bank and instruments: a systematic review

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

  1. CFI, comparative fit index; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (subscale disability/symtpoms); DIF, differential item functioning; ECV, explained common variance; FA, factor analysis; FIHOA, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis; FIQ, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; MHQ-ADL, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (subscale Activities of Daily Living); NDI, Neck Disability Index; RMDQ, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; PRWE, patient-rated wrist evaluation; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SD, standard deviation; SF36-PF-10, short-form 36 physical functioning scale; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Squared Error; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; UE, upper extremity
  2. “ + ” = sufficient, “?” = indeterminate, “-” = insufficient
  3. aEvidence for comprehensibility from the general population is considered valid for all other relevant patient populations for this review
  4. bData from Van Bruggen et al. and Haan et al. are also used as part of the larger dataset of Lameijer et al. for partly the same analyses. Only the results from Lameijer are taken into account when the same analyses are conducted
  5. cCorrelations with the HAQ-DI and SF-36-PF10 were assessed in two studies, but both only counted once for the total score
  6. dAdjusted by reviewers to hypothesis of Haan et al. [27] as this was deemed more suitable
  7. eCorrelations with the DASH and MHQ-ADL were assessed in two studies, but both only counted once for the total score