Cited by 158Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Validity and Reliability of Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Instruments in Osteoarthritis

Open access
Broderick, Joan E., Schneider, Stefan, Junghaenel, Doerte U., Schwartz, Joseph E., Stone, Arthur A.·2013·Arthritis Care & Research

Abstract

Objective: Evaluation of known‐group validity, ecological validity, and test–retest reliability of 4 domain instruments from the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Methods: We recruited an OA sample and a comparison general population (GP) sample through an internet survey panel. Pain intensity, pain interference, physical functioning, and fatigue were assessed for 4 consecutive weeks with PROMIS short forms on a daily basis and compared with same‐domain Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) instruments that use a 7‐day recall. Known‐group validity (comparison of OA and GP), ecological validity (comparison of aggregated daily measures with CAT instruments), and test–retest reliability were evaluated. Results: The recruited samples matched the demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, and ethnicity) of the US sample for arthritis and the 2009 Census for the GP. Compliance with repeated measurements was excellent at >95%. Known‐group validity for CATs was demonstrated with large effect sizes (pain intensity 1.42, pain interference 1.25, and fatigue 0.85). Ecological validity was also established through high correlations between aggregated daily measures and weekly CATs (≥0.86). Test–retest validity (7‐day) was very good (≥0.80). Conclusion: PROMIS CAT instruments demonstrated known‐group and ecological validity in a comparison of OA patients with a GP sample. Adequate test–retest reliability was also observed. These data provide encouraging initial data on the utility of these PROMIS instruments for clinical and research outcomes in OA patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acr.22025

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-24
Volume
65
Issue
10
Pages
1625-1633
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-464X
  • 2151-4658
OpenAlex
W2064407121
Cited by
158
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
19.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • Ministerul Cercetării, Inovării şi Digitalizării
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (01-AR-057948, U01AR057948)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
osteoarthritis, PROMIS, patient-reported outcomes, computerized adaptive testing, known-groups validity, ecological validity, test-retest reliability, pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Pain Measurement, Predictive Value of Tests, Mental Recall, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Arthralgia, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review