Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2019

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric

Authors: M. A. H. Oude Voshaar, H. E. Vonkeman, D. Courvoisier, A. Finckh, L. Gossec, Y. Y. Leung, K. Michaud, G. Pinheiro, E. Soriano, N. Wulfraat, A. Zink, M. A. F. J. van de Laar

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Objectives

Outcomes obtained using different physical function patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are difficult to compare. To facilitate standardization of physical function outcome measurement and reporting we developed an item response theory (IRT) based standardized physical function score metric for ten commonly used physical function PROMs.

Methods

Data of a total of 16,386 respondents from representative cohorts of patients with rheumatic diseases as well as the Dutch general population were used to map the items of ten commonly used physical function PROMs on a continuous latent physical function variable. The resulting IRT based common metric was cross-validated in an independent dataset of 243 patients with gout, osteoarthritis or polymyalgia in which four of the linked PROMs were administered.

Results

Our analyses supported that all 97 items of the ten included PROMs relate to a single underlying physical function variable and that responses to each item could be described by the generalized partial credit IRT model. In the cross-validation analyses we found congruent mean scores for four different PROMs when the IRT based scoring procedures were used.

Conclusions

We showed that the standardized physical function score metric developed in this study can be used to facilitate standardized reporting of physical function outcomes for ten commonly used make physical function PROMs.

Available only for authorised users

Taylor, A. M., Phillips, K., Patel, K. V., Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Beaton, D., et al. (2016). Assessment of physical function and participation in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT/OMERACT recommendations. Pain, 157, 1836–1850.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Felson, D. T., Anderson, J. J., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Chernoff, M., Fried, B., et al. (1993). The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 36, 729–740.CrossRef

Dawson, J., Doll, H., Fitzpatrick, R., Jenkinson, C., & Carr, A. J. (2010). The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ, 340, c186.CrossRefPubMed

Porter, M. E., Ph, D., Larsson, S., Ph, D., & Lee, T. H. (2016). Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 10–12.CrossRef

De Ayala, R. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Press.

Choi, S. W., Schalet, B., Cook, K. F., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment, 26, 513–527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: Linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28, 88–96.CrossRefPubMed

Wahl, I., Löwe, B., Bjorner, J. B., Fischer, F., Langs, G., Voderholzer, U., et al. (2014). Standardization of depression measurement: A common metric was developed for 11 self-report depression measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 73–86.CrossRefPubMed

Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., Yanez, B., & Stone, A. (2014). Linking fatigue measures on a common reporting metric. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 48, 639–648.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Zhao, Y., Chan, W., & Lo, B. C. Y. (2017). Comparing five depression measures in depressed Chinese patients using item response theory: An examination of item properties, measurement precision and score comparability. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0631-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Calin, A., Garrett, S., Whitelock, H., Kennedy, L. G., O’Hea, J., Mallorie, P., et al. (1994). A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: The development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. The Journal of Rheumatology, 21, 2281–2285.PubMed

12.

Singh, G., Athreya, B. H., Fries, J. F., & Goldsmith, D. P. (1994). Measurement of health status in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 37, 1761–1769.CrossRef

13.

Kohlmann, T., Raspe, H. (1996). Hannover Functional Questionnaire in ambulatory diagnosis of functional disability caused by backache. Rehabilitation (Stuttg), 35, I–VIII.

14.

Fries, J. F., Spitz, P., Kraines, R. G., & Holman, H. R. (1980). Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 23, 137–145.CrossRef

15.

Wolfe, F., Michaud, K., & Pincus, T. (2004). Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: A revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 50, 3296–3305.CrossRef

16.

King-Kallimanis, B. L., Oort, F. J., Nolte, S., Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. (2011). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift in performance and health-related quality of life scores of multiple sclerosis patients. Quality of Life Research, 20, 1527–1540.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Pincus, T., Summey, J. A., Soraci, S. A., Wallston, K. A., & Hummon, N. P. (1983). Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 26, 1346–1353.CrossRef

18.

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. The Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 2061–2066.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Voshaar, M. A. H. O., Klooster, P. M., Vonkeman, H. E., & van de Laar, M. A. F. J. (2017). Measuring everyday functional competence using the Rasch assessment of everyday activity limitations (REAL) item bank. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2949–2959.CrossRef

20.

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Uitz, E., Fransen, J., Langenegger, T., & Stucki, G. (2000). Clinical quality management in rheumatoid arthritis: Putting theory into practice. Swiss Clinical Quality Management in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford), 39, 542–549.CrossRef

22.

Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2017). A brief introduction to the national data bank for rheumatic diseases. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 23, S168–S171.

23.

Zink, A., Listing, J., Klindworth, C., & Zeidler, H. (2001). The national database of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres: I. Structure, aims, and patients. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 60, 199–206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Kievit, W., Fransen, J., Oerlemans, A. J. M., Kuper, H. H., van der Laar, M. A. F. J., de Rooij, D. J. R. A. M., et al. (2007). The efficacy of anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis, a comparison between randomised controlled trials and clinical practice. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 66, 1473–1478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Swart, J. F., de Roock, S., & Wulffraat, N. M. (2013). What are the immunological consequences of long-term use of biological therapies for juvenile idiopathic arthritis? Arthritis Research & Therapy, 15, 213.CrossRef

26.

Leenheer, J., & Scherpenzeel, A. C. (2013). Does it pay off to include non-internet households in an internet panel? International Journal of Internet Science, 8, 17–29.

27.

Oude Voshaar, M. A. H., ten Klooster, P. M., Glas, C. A. W., Vonkeman, H. E., Taal, E., Krishnan, E., et al. (2014). Calibration of the PROMIS physical function item bank in Dutch patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS ONE, 9, e92367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Gossec, L., de Wit, M., Kiltz, U., Braun, J., Kalyoncu, U., Scrivo, R., et al. (2014). A patient-derived and patient-reported outcome measure for assessing psoriatic arthritis: Elaboration and preliminary validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire, a 13-country EULAR initiative. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 73, 1012–1019.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Mazza, A., Punzo, A., & McGuire, B. (2012). KernSmoothIRT: An R package for kernel smoothing in item response theory. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1183.

30.

Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2004). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: user’ss guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

31.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

32.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

33.

Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ω_h. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121–144.CrossRef

34.

Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research, 18, 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 5–26.CrossRef

36.

Eggen, T. H. M., & Verhelst, N. D. (2011). Item calibration in incomplete testing design. Psicológica, 32, 107–132.

37.

Glas, C. A. W. (1988). The Rasch model and multistage testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 13, 45–52.CrossRef

38.

García-Pérez, M. A., Alcalá-Quintana, R., & García-Cueto, E. (2010). A comparison of anchor-item designs for the concurrent calibration of large banks of Likert-type items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 580–599.CrossRef

39.

Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (2002). A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 25–41.CrossRef

40.

Glas, C. (2010). Preliminary manual of the software program multidimensional item response theory (MIRT). Enschede: University of Twente.

41.

Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39, 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Masters, G. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272.CrossRef

43.

Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1992.tb01436.x/abstract.CrossRef

44.

Glas, C. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning using Lagrange multiplier tests. Statistica Sinica, 1998, 647–667

45.

Glas, C. A. W., & Falcón, J. C. S. (2003). A comparison of item-fit statistics for the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 87–106.CrossRef

46.

Khalid, M. N., & Glas, C. A. W. (2014). A scale purification procedure for evaluation of differential item functioning. Measurement, 50, 186–197.CrossRef

47.

Yen, W. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125–145.CrossRef

48.

Thissen, D., Reeve, B. B., Bjorner, J. B., & Chang, C. H. (2007). Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales. Quality of Life Research, 16, 109–119.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Raju, N. S., Price, L. R., Oshima, T. C., Nering, M. L.. Standardized Conditional, S. E. M. (2007). A case for conditional reliability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606291569.CrossRef

50.

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Hsu, L. M. (1994). Item overlap correlations: Definitions, interpretations, and implications. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2902_1.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Levy, P. (1967). The correction for spurious correlation in the evaluation of short-form tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196701)23:1%3C84::AID-JCLP2270230123%3E3.0.CO;2-2.CrossRefPubMed

53.

ten Klooster, P. M., Taal, E., & van de Laar, M. A. F. J. (2008). Rasch analysis of the Dutch Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index and the Health Assessment Questionnaire II in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 59, 1721–1728.CrossRef

54.

Klooster, P. Mten, Oude Voshaar, M. A., Gandek, B., Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Taal, E., et al. (2013). Development and evaluation of a crosswalk between the SF-36 physical functioning scale and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index in rheumatoid arthritis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 199.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Schalet, B. D., Revicki, D. A., Cook, K. F., Krishnan, E., Fries, J. F., & Cella, D. (2015). Establishing a common metric for physical function: Linking the HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF subscale to PROMIS(®) physical function. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30, 1517–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3360-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Muraki, E. (1993). Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169301700403.CrossRef

57.

Holgado-Tello, F. P., Chacón-Moscoso, S., Barbero-García, I., & Vila-Abad, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y.CrossRef

58.

Reese, L. (1995). The impact of local dependencies on some LSAT outcomes. Statistical report. LSAC research report series. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=related:8sPe58Fz1iQJ:scholar.google.com.

59.

Sigl, T., Cieza, A., van der Heijde, D., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF based comparison of disease specific instruments measuring physical functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 64, 1576–1581. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.027185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Stucki, G., & Cieza, A. (2004). The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core sets for rheumatoid arthritis: A way to specify functioning. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(Suppl 2), ii40–ii45. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.028233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric
Authors: M. A. H. Oude Voshaar
H. E. Vonkeman
D. Courvoisier
A. Finckh
L. Gossec
Y. Y. Leung
K. Michaud
G. Pinheiro
E. Soriano
N. Wulfraat
A. Zink
M. A. F. J. van de Laar
Publication date: 01-01-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2007-0

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Development and content validity of a hemodialysis symptom patient-reported outcome measure

Mapping the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores to EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in patients with schizophrenia

Psychometric performance assessment of Malay and Malaysian English version of EQ-5D-5L in the Malaysian population

Psychometric properties of a modified version of the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P) in a clinical sample of children with aggressive behavior

Effects of caregiver-involved interventions on the quality of life of children and adolescents with chronic conditions and their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Quality of life of persons living with HIV and congruence with surrogate decision-makers