, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 1015–1022 | Cite as

Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3

  • Ron D. Hays
  • Dennis A. Revicki
  • David Feeny
  • Peter Fayers
  • Karen L. Spritzer
  • David Cella
Original Research Article



Preference-based health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) scores are useful as outcome measures in clinical studies, for monitoring the health of populations, and for estimating quality-adjusted life-years.


This was a secondary analysis of data collected in an internet survey as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) project. To estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) preference scores, we used the ten PROMIS® global health items, the PROMIS-29 V2.0 single pain intensity item and seven multi-item scales (physical functioning, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, sleep disturbance), and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 items. Linear regression analyses were used to identify significant predictors, followed by simple linear equating to avoid regression to the mean.


The regression models explained 48 % (global health items), 61 % (PROMIS-29 V2.0 scales), and 64 % (PROMIS-29 V2.0 items) of the variance in the HUI-3 preference score. Linear equated scores were similar to observed scores, although differences tended to be larger for older study participants.


HUI-3 preference scores can be estimated from the PROMIS® global health items or PROMIS-29 V2.0. The estimated HUI-3 scores from the PROMIS® health measures can be used for economic applications and as a measure of overall HR-QOL in research.


Preference Score Item Bank Computerize Adaptive Testing Pain Interference Item Response Theory Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by a grant from National Cancer Institute (1U2-CCA186878-01) and a supplement to the PROMIS statistical center grant (3U54AR057951-04S4). Ron D. Hays, Dennis A. Revicki, Peter Fayers, Karen L. Spritzer, and David Cella declare no conflicts of interest. David Feeny has a proprietary interest in Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, Ontario, Canada.

Author Contributions

Ron D. Hays drafted the article and supervised the analyses of the data. All other authors provided edits to the draft article. David Feeny and Peter Fayers provided input on the statistical analyses. Karen L. Spritzer implemented the analyses.

Supplementary material

40273_2016_408_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (70 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 70 kb)
40273_2016_408_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (118 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 117 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hays RD, Alonso J, Coons SJ. Possibilities for summarizing health-related quality of life when using a profile instrument. In: Staquet M, Hays RD, Fayers P, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 143–53.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan RM. Measuring quality of life for policy analysis: past, present and future. In: Lenderking WR, Revicki DA, editors. Advancing health outcome research methods and clinical applications. McLean: International Society for Quality of Life Research; 2005. p. 1–35.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference-based outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:467–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:477–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hays RD, Eastwood J, Kotlerman J, et al. Health-related quality of life and patient reports about care outcomes in a multidisciplinary hospital intervention. Ann Behav Med. 2006;31:173–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hays RD, Reeve BB, Smith AW, et al. Associations of cancer and other chronic medical conditions with SF-6D preference-based scores in Medicare beneficiaries. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:385–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks R. The EuroQol group after 25 years. New York: Springer; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hector RD, Anderson JP, Paul RC, et al. Health state preferences are equivalent in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:729–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, et al. U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2007;45:1162–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, et al. Comparison of five health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory. Med Dec Making. 2010;30:5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, et al. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:783–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluations in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrou S, Rivero-Aria O, Dakin H, et al. Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: the MAPS statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:985–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hays RD, Bjorner J, Revicki DA, et al. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:873–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Thompson WW, et al. U.S. general population estimate for “excellent” to “poor” self-rated health item. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:1511–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fayers PM, Hays RD. Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile to preference-based measures? Value Health. 2014;17:261–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. Initial item banks and first wave testing of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, et al. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1169–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanmartin C, Berthelot JM, Ng E, et al. Comparing health and health care in Canada and the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:1133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feeny D, Kaplan MS, Huguet N, et al. Comparing population health in the United States and Canada. Popul Health Metr. 2010;8:8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feeny D, Spritzer KL, Hays RD, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2011;32:273–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hays RD, Liu H, Kapteyn A. Use of internet panels to conduct surveys. Behav Res Methods. 2015;47:685–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanmer J, Hays RD, Fryback DG. Mode of administration is important in U.S. national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2007;45:1171–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bjorner JB, Rose M, Gandek B, et al. Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:108–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raat H, Bonsel GJ, Hoogeveen WC, et al. Feasibility and reliability of a mailed questionnaire to obtain visual analogue scale valuations for health states defined by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Med Care. 2004;42(1):13–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Le Galès C, Buron C, Costet N, et al. Development of a preference-weighted health status classification system in France: the Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002;5(1):41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ruiz M, Rejas J, Soto J, et al. Adaptation and validation of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 into Spanish and correction norms for Spanish population. Med Clin. 2003;120:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, et al. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health. 2014;17:846–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischoff B, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;3:122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron D. Hays
    • 1
  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 2
  • David Feeny
    • 3
    • 4
  • Peter Fayers
    • 5
    • 6
  • Karen L. Spritzer
    • 1
  • David Cella
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineUCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Outcomes ResearchEvideraBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Health Utilities IncorporatedDundasCanada
  5. 5.Institute of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  6. 6.Department of Cancer Research and Molecular MedicineNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  7. 7.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations