The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity and Reliability of Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Instruments in Osteoarthritis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This most likely does not represent a clinically important difference based on the SD methodology used in prior works with PROMIS tools (Table 6), but it at least suggests that the intervention group did not experience greater pain [34].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
(1991) · Cited by 15,554
Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world
Graham, J. W. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 · Cited by 6,163
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Lawrence, R. C., Felson, D. T., Helmick, C. G., Arnold, L. M., Choi, H. K., Deyo, R. A., Gabriel, S. E., Hirsch, R., Hochberg, M. C., Hunder, G. G., et al. (2007) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.23176 · Cited by 5,599
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011 · Cited by 5,128
Self-citationCore outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Katz, N. P., Kerns, R. D., Stucki, G., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., et al. (2005) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 · Cited by 3,732
Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., Cleeland, C., Dionne, R., Farrar, J. T., Galer, B. S., et al. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001 · Cited by 3,510
Species Richness of Parasite Assemblages: Evolution and Patterns
Poulin, R. (1997) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.341 · Cited by 3,500
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Winstein, C. J., Stein, J., Arena, R., Bates, B., Cherney, L. R., Cramer, S. C., Deruyter, F., Eng, J. J., Fisher, B., Harvey, R. L., et al. (2016) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000098 · Cited by 3,293
Rose, M., Bjørner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024 · Cited by 451
Askew, R. L., Cook, K. F., Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., & Amtmann, D. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.035 · Cited by 212
Lee, A. C., Driban, J. B., Price, L. L., Harvey, W. F., Rodday, A. M., & Wang, C. (2017) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2017.05.001 · Cited by 197
Establishing outcome measures in early knee osteoarthritis
Emery, C. A., Whittaker, J. L., Mahmoudian, A., Lohmander, S. L., Roos, E. M., Bennell, K. L., Toomey, C., Reimer, R. A., Thompson, D., Ronsky, J. L., et al. (2019) · Nature Reviews Rheumatology · doi:10.1038/s41584-019-0237-3 · Cited by 152
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC3779528
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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 › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › 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
