Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agreement between proxy- and self-report scores on PROMIS health-related quality of life domains in pediatric burn survivors: a National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System Study

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

Abstract

Purpose

To examine agreement between pediatric burn survivor self- and caregiver proxy-report on multiple PROMIS domains and examine factors associated with differences between self- and proxy-reports.

Methods

Children 8–17 years of age and their caregivers completed PROMIS measures (physical function, depression, peer relationships, pain interference, and anger) between 6 months and 15 years after injury. Self- and proxy-report scores were compared using Wilcoxon sign rank test, Cohen’s effect size, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and by agreement across severity of symptoms based on recommended cutoffs. Ordinary least squares regression analyses examined child- (self-report score, age, gender, and ethnicity) and proxy-related (relationship to child) factors associated with score differences.

Results

Two hundred and seventy four child-caregiver pairs completed the PROMIS measures. Mean child age was 13.0 (SD:3) years. Caregivers reported significantly worse scores than the child on physical function, pain, and anger (all p ≤ 0.01). The effect sizes were small across all domains except physical function. Similarly, ICCs were all of moderate agreement. The percentage of dyads in agreement by severity groups was high with only 5%-9% of pairs discordant. Only higher self-report score was associated (all p < 0.05) with greater differences across all domains in regression analyses.

Conclusions

This study supports the use of pediatric proxy PROMIS depression, physical function, peer relationships, pain interference, and anger scales in pediatric burn patients. Although agreement was moderate to good, assessing proxy-report alone as a surrogate should only be considered when self-report is not possible or practical. Caregivers typically report slightly worse severity of symptoms than children across all domains.

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

Data availability

A complete deidentified Burn Model System dataset is freely available via written request to burndata@uw.edu. See burndata.washington.edu for additional information.

Code availability

Stata code will be shared upon reasonable request.

References

  1. American Burn Association. (2018). Burn Injury Fact Sheet. https://ameriburn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/nbaw-factsheet_121417-1.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2020.

  2. American Burn Association. (2017). National Burn Repository 2017 Update: Report of data from 2008–2017.

  3. Kelter, B. M., Holavanahalli, R., Suman, O. E., Ryan, C. M., & Schneider, J. C. (2020). Recognizing the long-term sequelae of burns as a chronic medical condition. Burns, 46(2), 493–496.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Deshpande, P. R., Rajan, S., Sudeepthi, B. L., & Nazir, C. P. A. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res, 2, 137–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ader, D. N. (2007). Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S1–S2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Health Measures. (2020). Intro to PROMIS®. https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-to-promis. Accessed August 8, 2020.

  8. Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sneeuw, K. C., Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(11), 1130–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Upton, P., Lawford, J., & Eiser, C. (2008). Parent-child agreement across child health-related quality of life instruments: A review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(6), 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Varni, J. W., Katz, E. R., Seid, M., Quiggins, D. J., Friedman-Bender, A., & Castro, C. M. (1998). The Pediatric Cancer Quality of Life Inventory (PCQL). Instrument development, descriptive statistics, and cross-informant variance. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21(2), 179–204.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Janicke, D. M., Finney, J. W., & Riley, A. W. (2001). Children’s health care use: a prospective investigation of factors related to care-seeking. Medical Care, 39(9), 990–1001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Irwin, D. E., Gross, H. E., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2012). Development of six PROMIS pediatrics proxy-report item banks. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 10, 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Varni, J. W., Thissen, D., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Gorder, H., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2012). PROMIS® Parent Proxy Report Scales: An item response theory analysis of the parent proxy report item banks. Quality of Life Research, 21(7), 1223–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Varni, J. W., Thissen, D., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Magnus, B., He, J., et al. (2015). Item-level informant discrepancies between children and their parents on the PROMIS® pediatric scales. Quality of Life Research, 24(8), 1921–1937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Birnie, K. A., Richardson, P. A., Rajagopalan, A. V., & Bhandari, R. P. (2020). Factors related to agreement between child and caregiver report of child functioning with chronic pain: PROMIS pediatric and parent proxy report. Clinical Journal of Pain, 36(3), 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh, A., DasGupta, M., Simpson, P. M., & Panepinto, J. A. (2019). Use of the new pediatric PROMIS measures of pain and physical experiences for children with sickle cell disease. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 66(5), e27633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hemmingsson, H., Olafsdottir, L. B., & Egilson, S. T. (2017). Agreements and disagreements between children and their parents in health-related assessments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(11), 1059–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Waters, E., Stewart-Brown, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2003). Agreement between adolescent self-report and parent reports of health and well-being: results of an epidemiological study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(6), 501–509.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 10(4), 347–357.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Amtmann, D., McMullen, K., Bamer, A., Fauerbach, J. A., Gibran, N. S., Herndon, D., et al. (2020). National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System: Review of Program and Database. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(1S), S5–S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Goverman, J., Mathews, K., Holavanahalli, R. K., Vardanian, A., Herndon, D. N., Meyer, W. J., et al. (2017). The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System: Twenty Years of Contributions to Clinical Service and Research. J Burn Care Res, 38(1), e240–e253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Flora, D., & Thissen, D. (2002). IRTScore: Item Response Theory Score Approximation Software http://www.davethissen.net/840F14/IRTScore.pdf. L.L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.

  24. Dewalt, D. A., Thissen, D., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., Morgan Dewitt, E., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2013). PROMIS Pediatric Peer Relationships Scale: development of a peer relationships item bank as part of social health measurement. Health Psychology, 32(10), 1093–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. DeWitt, E. M., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Langer, M., Varni, J. W., et al. (2011). Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 794–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 595–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., DeWitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2012). PROMIS Pediatric Anger Scale: An item response theory analysis. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 697–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference Scale: An item response theory analysis of the pediatric pain item bank. J Pain, 11(11), 1109–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kendall, M. (1938). A New Measure of Rank Correlation. Biometrika, 30(1–2), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. (2020). Pediatric Drug Legislation Office of new drugs module. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cderworld/index.cfm?action=newdrugs:main&unit=4&lesson=1&topic=5. Accessed October 23, 2020.

  34. Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., Yeatts, K., et al. (2010). Sampling plan and patient characteristics of the PROMIS pediatrics large-scale survey. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 585–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Northwestern University. (2020). PROMIS Score Cut Points. https://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/promis/promis-score-cut-points. Accessed August 4, 2020.

  36. Meyer, W. J., 3rd., Lee, A. F., Kazis, L. E., Li, N. C., Sheridan, R. L., Herndon, D. N., et al. (2012). Adolescent survivors of burn injuries and their parents’ perceptions of recovery outcomes: do they agree or disagree? J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 73(3 Suppl 2), S213-220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kroner-Herwig, B., Morris, L., Heinrich, M., Gassmann, J., & Vath, N. (2009). Agreement of parents and children on characteristics of pediatric headache, other pains, somatic symptoms, and depressive symptoms in an epidemiologic study. Clinical Journal of Pain, 25(1), 58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pan, R., Egberts, M. R., Nascimento, L. C., Rossi, L. A., Vandermeulen, E., Geenen, R., et al. (2015). Health-Related Quality of Life in adolescent survivors of burns: Agreement on self-reported and mothers’ and fathers’ perspectives. Burns, 41(5), 1107–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Varni, J. W., Burwinkle, T. M., Rapoff, M. A., Kamps, J. L., & Olson, N. (2004). The PedsQL in pediatric asthma: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory generic core scales and asthma module. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 27(3), 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eiser, C., Vance, Y. H., Horne, B., Glaser, A., & Galvin, H. (2003). The value of the PedsQLTM in assessing quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(2), 95–102.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Goldbeck, L., & Melches, J. (2005). Quality of life in families of children with congenital heart disease. Quality of Life Research, 14(8), 1915–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Eiser, C., & Varni, J. W. (2013). Health-related quality of life and symptom reporting: similarities and differences between children and their parents. European Journal of Pediatrics, 172(10), 1299–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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(2), 212–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Devine, J., Schroder, L. A., Metzner, F., Klasen, F., Moon, J., Herdman, M., et al. (2018). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of eight pediatric PROMIS(R) item banks into Spanish and German. Quality of Life Research, 27(9), 2415–2430.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hays, R. D., Calderon, J. L., Spritzer, K. L., Reise, S. P., & Paz, S. H. (2018). Differential item functioning by language on the PROMIS((R)) physical functioning items for children and adolescents. Quality of Life Research, 27(1), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (Grant Number: 90DPGE0004; PI: Amtmann, D).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195-4237, USA

    Alyssa M. Bamer, Kara McMullen & Dagmar Amtmann

  2. Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Lewis Kazis

  3. Shriners Hospitals for Childre–Boston, Boston, MA, USA

    Camerin A. Rencken

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA

    Steven E. Wolf

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Barclay T. Stewart

Authors
  1. Alyssa M. Bamer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kara McMullen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven E. Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barclay T. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lewis Kazis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Camerin A. Rencken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dagmar Amtmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data analyses were performed by AB, KM, and DA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AB and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alyssa M. Bamer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors received support from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) for their work on this project: Authors AB, KM, and DA under grant #90DPGE0004, SW under grant #90DPBU0003, BS under grant #90DP0004, and LK and CR under grant #90DBPU0001. Author SW has also received NIDILRR funding for an unrelated project (Grant #90DPBU0003). Author SW is the Editor in Chief of the journal Burns and has received consultant fees from Rochal Industries and travel support from Shriners’ Hospitals for Shrine Leadership meetings.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at all research sites. These included the University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Partners Healthcare System and Shriners Hospital for Children, Boston, MA, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.

Consent to participate

Freely given, written informed consent was obtained from all participants or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bamer, A.M., McMullen, K., Wolf, S.E. et al. Agreement between proxy- and self-report scores on PROMIS health-related quality of life domains in pediatric burn survivors: a National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System Study. Qual Life Res 30, 2071–2080 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02796-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02796-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation