The PROMIS FatigueFM Profile: a self-report measure of fatigue for use in fibromyalgia
- 382 Downloads
Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by myriad symptoms and problems. Fatigue is one of the most common, distressing, and disabling symptoms in FM. The purpose of this study was to use fatigue item banks that were developed as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to devise a self-report measure of fatigue for use in individuals with FM.
A sample of 532 adults with FM (age range = 18–77, 96.1 % female) completed the PROMIS fatigue item bank. Factor analyses and item response theory analyses were used to identify dimensionality and optimally performing items. These data were used in combination with clinical input to select items for a fatigue self-report measure for use in FM.
Factor analyses revealed four distinct factors in the PROMIS fatigue item bank; items for each univariate subscale were identified by selecting four items with high item information values. A 16-item measure, the PROMIS FatigueFM Profile, consisting of four 4-item short forms reflecting fatigue experience (“intensity”) and fatigue impact in three subdomains—social, cognitive, and motivation—was created. The new PROMIS FatigueFM Profile short forms showed excellent internal reliability, low ceiling and floor effects, and equivalent or higher test information compared to the standard 4- and 7-item PROMIS fatigue short forms.
The newly developed PROMIS FatigueFM Profile, a 16-item measure consisting of four 4-item short forms of self-reported fatigue severity, shows early evidence of good psychometric characteristics, provides the ability to use short forms that assess distinct aspects of fatigue experience and fatigue impact, and demonstrates equivalent or higher levels of test information compared to standard PROMIS fatigue short forms with similar number of items. The PROMIS FatigueFM Profile indicated fatigue experience and impact levels approximately 1.5 standard deviations above the normative sample mean across all short forms. Future work to evaluate the validity and reliability of this new measure in individuals with FM is needed.
KeywordsFibromyalgia Fatigue Self-report measure Short form PROMIS
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases under award No. U01AR55069-01 (PI: Williams) and award No. 1K01AR064275 (PI: Kratz). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
This study was approved by the relevant research ethics committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study.
- 6.Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Choi, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Gershon, R., & Stone, A. (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(10 Suppl), S20–S27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Williams, D. A., Schilling, S., Shibata, K. N., Zwinck, L., Matallana, L., & Arnold, L. (2009). Relevance of PROMIS item banks to individuals with fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 60(10), S1404.Google Scholar
- 11.Schilling, S. G., & Bock, R. D. (2005). High-dimensional maximum marginal likelihood item factor analysis by adaptive quadrature. Psychometrika, 70(3), 1–23.Google Scholar
- 12.Schilling, S. G. (2005). ORDFAC: A computer program for ordinal factor analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
- 15.Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, 17, 1–100 .Google Scholar
- 16.Thissen, D., Chen, W. H., & Bock, R. D. (2003). MULTILOG7: Multiple category item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
- 17.Ihaka, R. (1988). R: Past and future history. Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
- 21.Cook, K., Kallen, M., Cella, D., Crane, P., Eldadah, B., & Hays, R., et al. (2014). The patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) perspective on: Universally-relevant vs. disease-attributed scales. http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/Universally-Relevant_vs_Disease-Attributed_2014-2-12_final508.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.