Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grady, K. L., & Lanuza, D. M. (2005). Physical functional outcomes after cardiothoracic transplantation. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 20(5 Suppl), S43–S50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants U01AR052186 and U01AR052155 from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Flynn was supported in part by the Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr. Hays was supported by grants P30AG028748 and P30AG021684 from the National Institute on Aging and grant P20MD000182 from the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Kathryn E. Flynn

  2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Mary Amanda Dew & Mary McNulty

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Mary Amanda Dew

  4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Mary Amanda Dew

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Robert L. Kormos

  6. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Box 17969, Durham, NC, 27715, USA

    Li Lin, Maria Fawzy, Felicia L. Graham & Kevin P. Weinfurt

  7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Box 17969, Durham, NC, 27715, USA

    Kevin P. Weinfurt

  8. Department of Medical Social Sciences and Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Elizabeth A. Hahn

  9. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ron D. Hays & Honghu Liu

Authors
  1. Kathryn E. Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Amanda Dew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Fawzy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felicia L. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elizabeth A. Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ron D. Hays
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robert L. Kormos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Honghu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mary McNulty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kevin P. Weinfurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin P. Weinfurt.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flynn, K.E., Dew, M.A., Lin, L. et al. Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant. Qual Life Res 24, 2591–2599 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1010-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1010-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation