Validation of PROMIS-29 domain scores among adult burn survivors: A National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System Study

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes are important for understanding recovery after burn injury, benchmarking service delivery and measuring the impact of interventions. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 domains have been validated for use among diverse populations though not among burn survivors. The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability of PROMIS-29 scores in this population. METHODS The PROMIS-29 scores of physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, ability to participate in social roles, and pain interference were evaluated for validity and reliability in adult burn survivors. Unidimensionality, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, and reliability were examined. Differential item functioning was used to examine bias with respect to demographic and injury characteristics. Correlations with measures of related constructs (Community Integration Questionnaire, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist-Civilian, and Veteran’s Rand-12) and known-group differences were examined. RESULTS Eight hundred and seventy-six burn survivors with moderate to severe injury from 6 months to 20 years postburn provided responses on PROMIS-29 domains. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 years to 93 years at time of assessment; mean years since injury was 3.4. All PROMIS domain scores showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87–0.97). There was a large ceiling effect on ability to participate in social roles (39.7%) and physical function (43.3%). One-factor confirmatory factor analyses supported unidimensionality (all comparative fit indices >0.95). We found no statistically significant bias (differential item functioning). Reliability was high (>0.9) across trait levels for all domains except sleep, which reached moderate reliability (>0.85). All known-group differences by demographic and clinical characteristics were in the hypothesized direction and magnitude except burn size categories. CONCLUSION The results provide strong evidence for reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 domain scores among adult burn survivors. Reliability of the extreme scores could be increased and the ceiling effects reduced by administering PROMIS-43, which includes six items per domain, or by administering by computerized adaptive testing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Test or Criteria, level III.

[1]  L. Kazis,et al.  The Impact of Burn Size on Community Participation , 2020, Annals of surgery.

[2]  C. Ryan,et al.  Inhalation injury is associated with long-term employment outcomes in the burn population: Findings from a cross-sectional examination of the Burn Model System National Database , 2020, PloS one.

[3]  Timothy C. Mauntel,et al.  A Longitudinal Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to Legacy Scales in Knee and Shoulder Arthroscopy Patients. , 2020, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[4]  C. Ryan,et al.  Recognizing the long-term sequelae of burns as a chronic medical condition. , 2019, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[5]  K. Kroenke,et al.  Comparative Responsiveness and Minimally Important Difference of Common Anxiety Measures , 2019, Medical care.

[6]  T. Albert,et al.  Correlation between NDI, PROMIS and SF-12 in Cervical Spine Surgery. , 2019, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[7]  P. Batterham,et al.  Associations of fatigue and sleep disturbance with nine common mental disorders. , 2019, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[8]  Paul A. Harris,et al.  The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners , 2019, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[9]  J. Hoch,et al.  The Relationship Among 3 Generic Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Patients With Lower Extremity Health Conditions. , 2019, Journal of athletic training.

[10]  A. Stone,et al.  PROMIS® Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[11]  A. Singer,et al.  The association of patient and burn characteristics with itching and pain severity. , 2019, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[12]  D. Cella,et al.  Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-57 and -29 item short forms among kidney transplant recipients , 2018, Quality of Life Research.

[13]  L. Nosanov,et al.  Patient and social characteristics contributing to disparities in outcomes after burn injury: application of database research to minority health in the burn population. , 2018, American journal of surgery.

[14]  Christa Boer,et al.  Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation , 2018, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[15]  M. O. Papuga,et al.  Large-scale clinical implementation of PROMIS computer adaptive testing with direct incorporation into the electronic medical record , 2018, Health systems.

[16]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Anxiety and Depression as Bidirectional Risk Factors for One Another: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies , 2017, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  L. Kazis,et al.  Fatigue Following Burn Injury: A Burn Model System National Database Study. , 2017, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association.

[18]  R. Kessler,et al.  Chronic Pain and Itch are Common, Morbid Sequelae Among Individuals Who Receive Tissue Autograft After Major Thermal Burn Injury , 2017, The Clinical journal of pain.

[19]  R. de la Vega,et al.  Defining mild, moderate, and severe pain in young people with physical disabilities , 2017, Disability and rehabilitation.

[20]  A. Jette,et al.  Development of the life impact burn recovery evaluation (LIBRE) profile: assessing burn survivors’ social participation , 2017, Quality of Life Research.

[21]  Ronald C. Chen,et al.  Reliability and validity of PROMIS measures administered by telephone interview in a longitudinal localized prostate cancer study , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[22]  A. Stone,et al.  PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  A. Jette,et al.  Validation of the Community Integration Questionnaire in the adult burn injury population , 2015, Quality of Life Research.

[24]  J. Fries,et al.  Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients , 2015, Quality of Life Research.

[25]  David Cella,et al.  Bringing PROMIS to practice: Brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care , 2015, Cancer.

[26]  L. Kazis,et al.  Recovery Trajectories After Burn Injury in Young Adults: Does Burn Size Matter? , 2015, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association.

[27]  L. Kazis,et al.  Benchmarks for Multidimensional Recovery After Burn Injury in Young Adults: The Development, Validation, and Testing of the American Burn Association/Shriners Hospitals for Children Young Adult Burn Outcome Questionnaire , 2013, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association.

[28]  C. Forrest,et al.  Advances in Patient-Reported Outcomes: The NIH PROMIS® Measures , 2013, EGEMS.

[29]  D. Herndon,et al.  Pruritus in Adult Burn Survivors: Postburn Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Increased Intensity , 2013, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association.

[30]  Joel Stein,et al.  The Long-Term Impact of Physical and Emotional Trauma: The Station Nightclub Fire , 2012, PloS one.

[31]  R. Hays,et al.  Prevalence and correlates of sleep disturbance in systemic sclerosis--results from the UCLA scleroderma quality of life study. , 2011, Rheumatology.

[32]  S. Reise,et al.  Item Banks for Measuring Emotional Distress From the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, Anxiety, and Anger , 2011, Assessment.

[33]  Paul K Crane,et al.  lordif: An R Package for Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Iterative Hybrid Ordinal Logistic Regression/Item Response Theory and Monte Carlo Simulations. , 2011, Journal of statistical software.

[34]  Daniel J Buysse,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. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[35]  L. Hynan,et al.  The 5‐D itch scale: a new measure of pruritus , 2010, The British journal of dermatology.

[36]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[37]  Michael Koller,et al.  A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[38]  William Rogers,et al.  Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[39]  G. Y. Wong,et al.  Precision of health-related quality-of-life data compared with other clinical measures. , 2007, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[40]  Peter C Esselman,et al.  Burn rehabilitation: state of the science. , 2006, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[41]  T. Brown,et al.  Long term functional outcomes and quality of life following severe burn injury. , 2005, Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.

[42]  T. Wadden,et al.  Psychiatric Diagnoses and Psychiatric Treatment Among Bariatric Surgery Candidates , 2004, Obesity surgery.

[43]  G. Andersson,et al.  Development of a brief version of the Burn Specific Health Scale (BSHS-B). , 2001, The Journal of trauma.

[44]  E. Blanchard,et al.  Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL). , 1996, Behaviour research and therapy.

[45]  Mary Lou Coad,et al.  THE COMMUNITY INTEGRATION QUESTIONNAIRE: A Comparative Examination , 1994, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[46]  Steven P. Reise,et al.  A Comparison of Item- and Person-Fit Methods of Assessing Model-Data Fit in IRT , 1990 .

[47]  J. Nunnally,et al.  Psychometric Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine.

[48]  D. Amtmann,et al.  Psychometric Properties of the Modified 5-D Itch Scale in a Burn Model System Sample of People With Burn Injury , 2017, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association.

[49]  D. Amtmann,et al.  The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System: Twenty Years of Contributions to Clinical Service and Research. , 2017, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association.

[50]  D. Amtmann,et al.  National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System: Review of Program and Database. , 2017, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[51]  Ralf Dresner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales A Practical Guide To Their Development And Use , 2016 .

[52]  PROMIS ® Minimum requirements for the release of PROMIS instruments after translation and recommendations for further psychometric evaluation , 2016 .

[53]  C. Terwee,et al.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[54]  J. Gliem,et al.  Calculating, Interpreting, And Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient For Likert-Type Scales , 2003 .

[55]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .