Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant
- 562 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCongestive heart failure Outcomes research Patient-reported outcomes
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
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.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
- 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar