Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system scale v1.2: global health (PROMIS-GH) in a Dutch general population

Authors: Leonardo Pellicciari, Alessandro Chiarotto, Emanuele Giusti, Martine H. P. Crins, Leo D. Roorda, Caroline B. Terwee

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the psychometric properties of the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Scale v1.2 – Global Health (PROMIS-GH).

Methods

The PROMIS-GH (also referred to as PROMIS-10) was administered to 4370 persons from the Dutch general population. Unidimensionality (CFI ≥ 0.95; TLI ≥ 0.95; RMSEA ≤ 0.06; SRMR ≤ 0.08), local independence (residual correlations < 0.20), monotonicity (H > 0.30), model fit with the Graded Response Model (GRM, p < 0.001), internal consistency (alpha > 0.75), precision (total score information across the latent trait), measurement invariance (no Differential Item Functioning [DIF]), and cross-cultural validity (no DIF for language, Dutch vs. United States English) of its subscales, composed of four items each, Global Mental Health (GMH) and Global Physical Health (GPH), were assessed.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses, on both subscales, revealed slight departures from unidimensionality for GMH (CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.22; SRMR = 0.04) and GPH (CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.12; SRMR = 0.03). Local independence, monotonicity, GRM model fit, internal consistency, precision and cross-cultural validity were supported. However, Global10 (emotional problems) showed misfit on the GMH subscale, while Global08 (fatigue) presented DIF for age.

Conclusion

The psychometric properties of the PROMIS-GH in the Dutch population were considered acceptable. Sufficient local independence, monotonicity, GRM fit, internal consistency, measurement invariance and cross-cultural validity were found. If future studies find similar results, structural validity of the GMH could be enhanced by improving or replacing Global10 (emotional problems).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(13):835–40.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Chiarotto A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, Boers M, et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(6):1127–42.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, Le Dorze G, et al. A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: the ROMA consensus statement. Int J Stroke. 2019;14(2):180–5.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Haywood K, Whitehead L, Nadkarni VM, Achana F, et al. COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in adults: an advisory statement from the international liaison committee on resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2018;127:147–63.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease P, Shea JA, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rhem Dis. 2017;76(4):673–80.CrossRef
6.
MacLennan S, Williamson PR, Bekema H, Campbell M, et al. A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials. BJU Int. 2017;120(5b):E64-e79.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Smith TOAO, Hawker GA, Hunter DJ, March LM, et al. The OMERACT-OARSI core domain set for measurement in clinical trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(8):981–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Chen K, Andersen T, Carroll L, Connelly L, et al. Recommendations for core outcome domain set for whiplash-associated disorders (CATWAD). Clin J Pain. 2019;35(9):727–36.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Grimby G, Franchignoni F. Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(8):661–72.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-s11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, 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(7):873–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Katzan IL, Lapin B. PROMIS GH (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system global health) scale in stroke: a validation study. Stroke. 2018;49(1):147–54.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Chiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA, Buchbinder R, et al. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain. 2018;159(3):481–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Salinas J, Sprinkhuizen SM, Ackerson T, Bernhardt J, et al. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke. 2016;47(1):180–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Chiarotto A, Terwee CB, Kamper SJ, Boers M, et al. Evidence on the measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments is largely missing in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;102:23–37.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Terwee CB, Crins MHP, Boers M, de Vet HCW, et al. Validation of two PROMIS item banks for measuring social participation in the Dutch general population. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(1):211–20.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Crins MHP, Terwee CB, Ogreden O, Schuller W, et al. Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(5):1231–43.PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
23.
Terwee C, Roorda L, De Vet H, Dekker J, et al. Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Qual Life Res. 2014;23(6):1733–41.PubMed
24.
25.
Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S22-31.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Quach CW, Langer MM, Chen RC, Thissen D, et al. Reliability and validity of PROMIS measures administered by telephone interview in a longitudinal localized prostate cancer study. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2811–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Gibbons LE, Fredericksen R, Batey DS, Dant L, et al. Validity assessment of the PROMIS fatigue domain among people living with HIV. AIDS Res Ther. 2017;14:21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Crins MHP, Terwee CB, Klausch T, Smits N, et al. The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Physical Function item bank exhibited strong psychometric properties in patients with chronic pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:47–58.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Flens G, Smits N, Terwee CB, Dekker J, et al. Development of a computerized adaptive test for anxiety based on the Dutch-Flemish version of the PROMIS item bank. Assessment. 2017:1073191117746742.
31.
Bevans KB, Gardner W, Pajer KA, Becker B, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS(R) pediatric psychological and physical stress experiences measures. J Pediatr Psychol. 2018;43(6):678–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Cook KF, Kallen MA, Amtmann D. Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(4):447–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Reise SP, Scheines R, Widaman KF, Haviland MG. Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: a bifactor perspective. Educ Psychol Measur. 2013;73(1):5–26.CrossRef
34.
Ames AJ, Penfield RD. An NCME instructional module on item-fit statistics for item response theory models. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2015;34(3):39–48.CrossRef
35.
Edwards JR, Bagozzi RP. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychol Methods. 2000;5(2):155–74.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Bollen KA, Diamantopoulos A. In defense of causal-formative indicators: a minority report. Psychol Methods. 2017;22(3):581–96.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Fleuren BPI, van Amelsvoort L, Zijlstra FRH, de Grip A, et al. Handling the reflective-formative measurement conundrum: a practical illustration based on sustainable employability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;103:71–81.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(2):97–8.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Khan A, Chien CW, Bagraith KS. Parametric analyses of summative scores may lead to conflicting inferences when comparing groups: a simulation study. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47(4):300–4.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Draak TH, Vanhoutte EK, van Nes SI, Gorson KC, et al. Changing outcome in inflammatory neuropathies: Rasch-comparative responsiveness. Neurology. 2014;83(23):2124–32.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Doganay Erdogan B, Leung YY, Pohl C, Tennant A, et al. Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch working group systematic review and critique. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(1):194–202.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, et al. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(7):711–7.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Gregory JJ, Werth PM, Reilly CA, Jevsevar DS. Cross-specialty PROMIS-global health differential item functioning. Qual Life Res. 2021.
44.
Reeve BB, Fayers P. Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In: Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods of practice. 2nd edn (ed Fayers PM, Hays RD). Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2005. 2:55–73.
45.
McKinley RL, Mills CN. A comparison of several goodness-of-fit statistics. Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9(1):49–57.CrossRef
46.
Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2016;21(2):137.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Revelle WR. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. 2017.
48.
Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(Suppl 1):19–31.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus (version 6)[computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. 2010.
50.
Mokken RJ. A theory and procedure of scale analysis: with applications in political research. Vol. 1. 2011: Walter de Gruyter.
51.
Van der Ark LA. New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(5):1–27.CrossRef
52.
DeMars C. Item response theory. 2010: Oxford University Press.
53.
Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Maheah. 2000, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
54.
Chalmers RP. mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(6):1–29.CrossRef
55.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Yusoff MSB, Rahim AFA, Yaacob MJ. The development and validity of the Medical Student Stressor Questionnaire (MSSQ). ASEAN J Psychiatry. 2010;11(1):231–5.
57.
Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. 2016.
58.
Choi SW, Gibbons LE, Crane PK. Lordif: an R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. J Stat Softw. 2011;39(8):1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G. Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care. 2006;S115-S123.
60.
Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36.
61.
Mansolf M, Reise SP. Exploratory bifactor analysis: the Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization and Jennrich-Bentler analytic rotations. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016;51(5):698–717.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, Coon CD. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value Health. 2015;18(1):25–34.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system scale v1.2: global health (PROMIS-GH) in a Dutch general population
Authors
Leonardo Pellicciari
Alessandro Chiarotto
Emanuele Giusti
Martine H. P. Crins
Leo D. Roorda
Caroline B. Terwee
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01855-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Same same-but different: using qualitative studies to inform concept elicitation for quality of life assessment in telemedical care: a request for an extended working model

Research

Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important difference based on anchor and its application in the quality of life measurement scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) for esophageal cancer

Research

Validation and clinical evaluation of a Polish translation of the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey for Kids (WURSS-K)

Research

The path linking disease severity and cognitive function with quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: the mediating effect of activities of daily living and depression

Research

Validation of a novel online depression symptom severity rating scale: the R8 Depression

Research

Sexual function, mental health, and quality of life under strain of COVID-19 pandemic in Iranian pregnant and lactating women: a comparative cross-sectional study