Dataset Information

Preoperative Evaluation of the Lower Extremity-Specific PROMIS Mobility Bank in Patients with ACL Tears.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to preoperatively assess the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Item Bank v2.0-Mobility in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears to (1) determine construct validity by correlating with legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs), (2) evaluate test burden, (3) determine the presence of floor or ceiling effects, and (4) revisit the conventional threshold for inclusiveness (floor/ceiling effects) in the modern era of computer adaptive testing (CAT)-based PROs.

Methods

Patients at a large academic musculoskeletal specialty center diagnosed with ACL tears indicated for surgery were administered the following outcomes measures before surgery: PROMIS Mobility CAT, PROMIS Pain Interference CAT (PROMIS PI), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), the Marx Knee Activity Rating Scale (Marx), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Construct validity was evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients. Correlation strengths were defined as high (≥0.7), high-moderate (0.61-0.69), moderate (0.4-0.6), moderate-weak (0.31-0.39) and weak (≤0.3). Number of questions to completion were recorded as a marker of test burden. The percentage of patients scoring at the extreme high (ceiling) or low (floor) of each measure was recorded to measure inclusivity.

Results

A total of 1126 patients were evaluated. The mean number of questions answered (± standard deviation) was 4.7 ± 2.1 for PROMIS Mobility and 4.5 ± 1.9 for PROMIS PI. PROMIS Mobility demonstrated a high correlation with IKDC, (r = 0.81, P < .001), a high-moderate correlation with PROMIS PI (r = -0.63), and a moderate correlation with SANE (r = 0.46, P < .01). Neither PROMIS Mobility nor PROMIS PI met conventional criteria for floor or ceiling effects (>15%).

Conclusions

The PROMIS Mobility measure maintains construct validity, because its scores correlate strongly with other PROs measuring physical function with high efficiency among preoperative patients with ACL injuries. Although ceiling effects of PROMIS Mobility CAT were below the conventional significance threshold of 15% at the preoperative timepoint in this population, this study provides critical feedback for redesigning the Mobility bank.

Level of evidence

Level III (Diagnostic study).

SUBMITTER: Day MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365215 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity (DF-PROMIS-UE) V2.0 item bank was recently developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). Unknown for this bank are: (1) if it is legitimate to calculate IRT-based scores for short forms and Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs), which requires that the items meet the assumptions of and fit the IRT-model (Graded Response Model [GRM]);(2) if it is legitimate to compare (sub) groups of patients using this measure, which requires measurement invariance; and (3) the precision of the estimated patients' scores for patients with different levels of functioning and compared to legacy measures. Aims were to evaluate (1) the assumptions of and fit to the GRM, (2) measurement invariance and (3) (comparative) precision of the DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0. METHODS:Cross-sectional data were collected in Dutch patients with upper extremity disorders. Assessed were IRT-assumptions (unidimensionality [bi-factor analysis], local independence [residual correlations], monotonicity [coefficient H]), GRM item fit, measurement invariance (absence of Differential Item Functioning [DIF] due to age, gender, center, duration, and location of complaints) and precision (standard error of IRT-based scores across levels of functioning). To study measurement invariance for language [Dutch vs. English], additional US data were used. Legacy instruments were the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the QuickDASH and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ). RESULTS:In total 521 Dutch (mean age?±?SD?=?51?±?17?years, 49% female) and 246 US patients (mean age?±?SD?=?48?±?14?years, 69% female) participated. The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank was sufficiently unidimensional (Omega-H?=?0.80, Explained Common Variance?=?0.68), had negligible local dependence (four out of 1035 correlations >?0.20), good monotonicity (H?=?0.63), good GRM fit (no misfitting items) and demonstrated sufficient measurement invariance. Precise estimates (Standard Error?<?3.2) were obtained for most patients (7-item short form, 88.5%; standard CAT, 91.3%; and, fixed 7-item CAT, 87.6%). The DASH displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT, the QuickDASH displayed comparable reliability. The MHQ-ADL displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT for T-scores between 28 and 50. For patients with low function, the DF-PROMIS-UE measures performed better. CONCLUSIONS:The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank showed sufficient psychometric properties in Dutch patients with UE disorders.