Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1733–1741 | Cite as

Dutch–Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)

  • C. B. Terwee
  • L. D. Roorda
  • H. C. W. de Vet
  • J. Dekker
  • R. Westhovens
  • J. van Leeuwen
  • D. Cella
  • H. Correia
  • B. Arnold
  • B. Perez
  • M. Boers



The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is a new, state-of-the-art assessment system for measuring patient-reported health and well-being of adults and children that has the potential to be more valid, reliable and responsive than existing PROMs. The PROMIS items can be administered in short forms or, more efficiently, through computerized adaptive testing. This paper describes the translation of 563 items from 17 PROMIS item banks (domains) for adults from the English source into Dutch–Flemish.


The translation was performed by FACITtrans using standardized methodology and approved by the PROMIS Statistical Center. The translation included four forward translations, two back-translations, three to five independent reviews (at least two Dutch, one Flemish) and pre-testing in 70 adults (age range 20–77) from the Netherlands and Flanders.


A small number of items required separate translations for Dutch and Flemish: physical function (five items), pain behaviour (two items), pain interference (one item), social isolation (one item) and global health (one item). Challenges faced in the translation process included: scarcity or overabundance of possible translations, unclear item descriptions, constructs broader/smaller in the target language, difficulties in rank ordering items, differences in unit of measurement, irrelevant items or differences in performance of activities. By addressing these challenges, acceptable translations were obtained for all items.


The methodology used and experience gained in this study can be used as an example for researchers in other countries interested in translating PROMIS. The Dutch–Flemish PROMIS items are linguistically equivalent. Short forms will soon be available for use and entire item banks are ready for cross-cultural validation in the Netherlands and Flanders.


PROMIS Translation Item bank IRT/CAT Questionnaire 



The Dutch–Flemish translation of the PROMIS item banks was financially supported by a grant from the Dutch Arthritis Association. We would like to thank Luc Ailliet and Jacqueline Bruinsma-Sier for their help with reviewing some of the PROMIS item banks.


  1. 1.
    Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1305–1314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hospital Episode Statistics. The Health and Social Care Information Centre (Ed.). (2012). Finalised Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England: April 2010 to March 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rolfson, O., Karrholm, J., Dahlberg, L. E., & Garellick, G. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register: Results of a nationwide prospective observational study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 93, 867–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alviar, M. J., Olver, J., Brand, C., Tropea, J., Hale, T., Pirpiris, M., et al. (2011). Do patient-reported outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have robust measurement attributes? A systematic review. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 572–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haywood, K. L., Staniszewska, S., & Chapman, S. (2012). Quality and acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures used in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21, 35–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nelson, C. J., Cho, C., Berk, A. R., Holland, J., & Roth, A. J. (2010). Are gold standard depression measures appropriate for use in geriatric cancer patients? A systematic evaluation of self-report depression instruments used with geriatric, cancer, and geriatric cancer samples. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 348–356.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Heymans, M. W., Koes, B. W., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21, 659–670.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sikkes, S. A., de Lange-de Klerk, E. S., Pijnenburg, Y. A., Scheltens, P., & Uitdehaag, B. M. (2009). A systematic review of instrumental activities of daily living scales in dementia: Room for improvement. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 80, 7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vandenbroeck, S., De, G. S., Zeyen, T., Stalmans, I., & Dobbels, F. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO’s) in glaucoma: A systematic review. Eye (Lond), 25, 555–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eyssen, I. C., Steultjens, M. P., Dekker, J., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). A systematic review of instruments assessing participation: Challenges in defining participation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, 983–997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first 2 years. Medical Care, 45, S3–S11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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, 1179–1194.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fries, J., Rose, M., & Krishnan, E. (2011). The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: Responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and internet administration. Journal of Rheumatology, 38, 1759–1764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Magasi, S., Ryan, G., Revicki, D., Lenderking, W., Hays, R. D., Brod, M., et al. (2012). Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Quality of Life Research, 21, 739–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fries, J. F., Krishnan, E., Rose, M., Lingala, B., & Bruce, B. (2011). Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Research and Therapy, 13, R147.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E. A., et al. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: Further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1311–1321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S22–S31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khanna, D., Krishnan, E., Dewitt, E. M., Khanna, P. P., Spiegel, B., & Hays, R. D. (2011). The future of measuring patient-reported outcomes in rheumatology: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Arthritis Care and Research (Hoboken), 63(Suppl 11), S486–S490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riley, W. T., Pilkonis, P., & Cella, D. (2011). Application of the national institutes of health Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to mental health research. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 14, 201–208.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eisenstein, E. L., Diener, L. W., Nahm, M., & Weinfurt, K. P. (2011). Impact of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Management Information System (PROMIS) upon the design and operation of multi-center clinical trials: A qualitative research study. Journal of Medical Systems, 35, 1521–1530.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cella, D. Center on Outcomes, R. a. E. (Ed.). (1997). Manual of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system (Version 4). Evanston.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28, 212–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonomi, A. E., Cella, D. F., Hahn, E. A., Bjordal, K., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Gangeri, L., et al. (1996). Multilingual translation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Quality of Life Research, 5, 309–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Flaherty, J. A., Gaviria, F. M., Pathak, D., Mitchell, T., Wintrob, R., Richman, J. A., et al. (1988). Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 176, 257–263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oude Voshaar, M. A., Ten Klooster, P. M., Taal, E., Krishnan, E., & van de Laar, M. A. (2012). Dutch translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PROMIS(R) physical function item bank and cognitive pre-test in Dutch arthritis patients. Arthritis Research and Therapy, 14, R47.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van den Berg, R., & te Lintelo, H. (1975). Analyse van individualiseringsvormen. Den Bosch: K.P.C. Groep.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), & Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25, 3186–3191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health, 8, 94–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Raad voor de Nederlandse Taal en Letteren. (2003). Variatie in het Nederlands: eenheid in verscheidenheid.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vandekerckhove, R. (2013). Belgian Dutch versus Netherlandic Dutch: New patterns of divergence? On pronouns of address and diminutives. Multilingua, 24, 379–397.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., Ambrosini, D., Lingala, B., Gandek, B., Rose, M., et al. (2009). Better assessment of physical function: Item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Research and Therapy, 11, R191.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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, 2061–2066.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Choi, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, S20–S27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boers, M. (2010). Standing on the promises: First wave validation reports of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1167–1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. B. Terwee
    • 1
  • L. D. Roorda
    • 2
  • H. C. W. de Vet
    • 1
  • J. Dekker
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • R. Westhovens
    • 5
    • 6
  • J. van Leeuwen
    • 7
  • D. Cella
    • 8
  • H. Correia
    • 8
  • B. Arnold
    • 9
  • B. Perez
    • 9
  • M. Boers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care ResearchVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ReadeAmsterdam Rehabilitation Research CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Development and Regeneration, Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research CenterKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  6. 6.Rheumatology, University HospitalsKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  7. 7.Leones Group bvAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  9. 9.FACITtransLLCElmhurstUSA

Personalised recommendations