Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 10/2019

08.06.2019

Measurement properties of PROMIS short forms for pain and function in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients

verfasst von: Anika Stephan, Jens Mainzer, Danica Kümmel, Franco M. Impellizzeri

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the measurement properties of the German PROMIS short forms for pain intensity (PAIN), pain interference (PI) and physical function (PF) in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients.

Methods

Patient-rated outcomes were collected from consecutive patients of our foot and ankle registry before and 6 months after surgery. Measurement properties were tested according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The German Foot Function Index (FFI-D) served as a legacy measure.

Results

748 patients were included in our cross-sectional sample. Longitudinal and test–retest data were available for 202 and 65 patients, respectively. Construct validity of all short forms was good. All Cronbach’s α and intraclass correlation coefficients were > 0.7. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was highest for PF (8.9) and lowest for PI (6.5). Minimal important change was 4 to 5 points and thus smaller than SDC for all instruments. We observed a baseline ceiling effect for PF. PI showed insufficiently correlated change scores with FFI-D disability change scores, and therefore failed the responsiveness testing.

Conclusion

Our study showed some adequate psychometric properties, but also certain aspects regarding interpretability and responsiveness that researchers must be aware of when using PROMIS short forms of pain and function in foot and ankle surgery patients.
Vorheriger Artikel The reliability and validity of the Chinese Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale in the general population of Hong Kong
Nächster Artikel Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in adolescence

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Brodsky, J. W., Cheng, C., Ellis, S. J., Franklin, J. D., et al. (2014). Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Foot and Ankle International, 35(6), 592–599.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Latt, L. D., Saltzman, C. L., SooHoo, N. F., Hunt, K. J., et al. (2013). Validation of PROMIS (R) Physical Function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(11), 3466–3474.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Slullitel, G. A. (2017). CORR Insights((R)): PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function scores correlate with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in patients with Hallux Valgus. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475(11), 2781–2782.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, C. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, C. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179.PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
9.
Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W. H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
11.
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(5), 516–526.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
13.
Sierevelt, I. N., Zwiers, R., Schats, W., Haverkamp, D., Terwee, C. B., Nolte, P. A., et al. (2018). Measurement properties of the most commonly used foot- and ankle-specific questionnaires: The FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 26(7), 2059–2073.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Naal, F. D., Impellizzeri, F. M., Huber, M., & Rippstein, P. F. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot and Ankle International, 29(12), 1222–1228.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Schneider, W., & Jurenitsch, S. (2016). Age- and sex-related normative data for the Foot Function Index in a German-speaking cohort. Foot and Ankle International, 37(11), 1238–1242.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Impellizzeri, F. M., Mannion, A. F., Naal, F. D., Hersche, O., & Leunig, M. (2012). The early outcome of surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement: Success depends on how you measure it. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 20(7), 638–645.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Mannion, A. F., Elfering, A., Staerkle, R., Junge, A., Grob, D., Semmer, N. K., et al. (2005). Outcome assessment in low back pain: How low can you go? European Spine Journal, 14(10), 1014–1026.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
19.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
20.
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
21.
Ho, B., Houck, J. R., Flemister, A. S., Ketz, J., Oh, I., DiGiovanni, B. F., et al. (2016). Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot and Ankle International, 37(9), 911–918.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Anderson, M. R., Houck, J. R., Saltzman, C. L., Hung, M., Nickisch, F., Barg, A., et al. (2018). Validation and generalizability of preoperative PROMIS scores to predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot and Ankle International, 39(7), 763–770.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Froud, R. (2009). ROCMIC: Stata module to estimate minimally important change (MIC) thresholds for continuous clinical outcome measures using ROC curves. Statistical Software Components S457052, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 24 Oct 2014. https://​ideas.​repec.​org/​c/​boc/​bocode/​s457052.​html. Accessed December 2018.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 900–908.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Jensen, R. E., Potosky, A. L., Reeve, B. B., Hahn, E., Cella, D., Fries, J., et al. (2015). Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(10), 2333–2344.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27–48.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Metadaten
Titel
Measurement properties of PROMIS short forms for pain and function in orthopedic foot and ankle surgery patients
verfasst von
Anika Stephan
Jens Mainzer
Danica Kümmel
Franco M. Impellizzeri
Publikationsdatum
08.06.2019
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02221-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2019

Quality of Life Research 10/2019 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Emotional and physical reactions to perceived discrimination, language preference, and health-related quality of life among Latinos and Whites

Editorial

Introduction to “Advancing quality‑of‑life research by deepening our understanding of response shift”

Responses to "Advancing quality‑of‑life research by deepening our understanding of response shift" by Bruce D. Rapkin & Carolyn E. Schwartz

Measurement of appraisal is a valuable adjunct to the current spine outcome tools: a clinician’s perspective on the Rapkin and Schwartz commentary

OriginalPaper

Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale in adolescence

Responses to "Advancing quality‑of‑life research by deepening our understanding of response shift" by Bruce D. Rapkin & Carolyn E. Schwartz

Conceptual and methodological considerations regarding appraisal and response shift

OriginalPaper

Cancer-related symptoms, mental well-being, and psychological distress in men diagnosed with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise