Cited by 684Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCancer survivorship and care

PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores

Open access
Hays, Ron D., Spritzer, Karen L., Schalet, Benjamin D., Cella, David·2018·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose The PROMIS-29 v2.0 profile assesses pain intensity using a single 0-10 numeric rating item and seven health domains (physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance) using four items per domain. This paper describes the development of physical and mental health summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0.Method We conducted factor analyses of PROMIS-29 scales on data collected from two internet panels (n = 3000 and 2000).Results Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for a physical health factor defined by physical function, pain (interference and intensity), and ability to participate in social roles and activities, and a mental health factor defined primarily by emotional distress (anxiety and depressive symptoms). Reliabilities for these two summary scores were 0.98 (physical health) and 0.97 (mental health). Correlations of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores with chronic conditions and other health-related quality of life measures were consistent with a priori hypotheses.Conclusions This study develops and provides preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores that can be used in future studies to assess impacts of health care interventions and track changes in health over time. Further evaluation of these and alternative summary measures is recommended.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-018-1842-3

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    The PROMIS v2.0 summary health measures are more reliable than the PROMIS global health summary scores: 0.93 and 0.95 versus 0.79 for physical health, and 0.97 and 0.98 versus 0.86 for mental health.

    “First, the PROMIS v2.0 summary health measures are more reliable than the PROMIS global health summary scores (0.93 and 0.95 vs 0.79 for physical health and 0.0.97 and 0.98 vs 0.86 for mental health) [24, 36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [24] Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Hays, R. D., Schalet, B. D., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2017). Two-item PROMIS global physical and mental health scales. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 1, 2. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    In Sample 1, people with a chronic condition scored significantly worse on the physical health summary score than those without the condition (p < 0.0010).

    “Those with a chronic condition scored significantly worse on the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score than those without the condition (p<0.0010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Sample 1, male gender, number of chronic conditions, and age were significantly negatively associated with both the physical and mental health summary scores.

    “Male gender, number of chronic conditions, and age were significantly negatively associated with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    People whose condition limited current activities, or whose impact on current activities was unknown, scored worse on both physical and mental health summary scores than those without the condition.

    “Appendix Table 3 shows that those with a condition that was limiting their current activities, or the impact of current activities was unknown (i.e., question about impact on current activities was not answered) scored worse on the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores than those without the condition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Sample 1, the physical health summary score's correlations with EQ-5D-3L, HUI-3, chronic conditions, gender, and age were similar to or larger than the mental health summary score's correlations, except for the HUI-3 emotion attribute.

    “The correlations are either similar in magnitude or higher with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score than with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score except for the HUI-3 emotion attribute.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score had a reliability of 0.98, and the mental health summary score had a reliability of 0.97.

    “Reliabilities for these two summary scores were 0.98 (physical health) and 0.97 (mental health).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two-factor confirmatory model fit the data well in both samples, with CFI = 0.99 in each and RMSEA = 0.06 in Sample 1 and 0.01 in Sample 2.

    “This model fit the data well (Sample 1 and 2, respectively: CFI = 0.99 and 0.99; RMSEA = 0.06 and 0.01, 90% CI 0.05–0.07 and 0.00–0.04)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sample 1, the PROMIS global physical health score was about 0.5 SD below the general population mean, and the PROMIS global mental health score was about 0.3 SD below.

    “Similarly, and consistently, the PROMIS global physical health score was about 0.5 SD below the general population mean while the PROMIS global mental health score was about 0.3 SD below.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Fatigue and sleep disturbance loaded about equally on both the physical and mental health factors, consistent with earlier research.

    “Consistent with previous research [19], fatigue and sleep disturbance loaded about equally on both factors (factor loading matrix available upon request).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Hays, R. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1990). The structure of self-reported health in chronic disease patients. Psychological Assessment, 2, 22–30. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sample 2, the physical health summary score's correlations with SF-36 scales, component summaries, chronic conditions, gender, and age were similar to or larger than the mental health summary score's correlations, except for SF-36 vitality, SF-36 mental health, SF-36 mental component summary, and age.

    “The correlations are either similar in magnitude or higher with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score than with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score except for the SF-36 vitality scale, SF-36 mental health scale, the SF-36 mental component summary score, and age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sample 2, the SF-36 physical component summary score was 0.4 SD below the U.S. general population mean, and the SF-36 mental component summary score was 0.2 SD below.

    “In contrast, the SF-36 physical component summary score was 0.4 SD below the U.S. general population mean while the SF-36 mental component summary score was 0.2 SD below.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sample 2, the estimated physical health summary score was about 0.1 SD below the U.S. general population average, while the mental health summary score was at the general population average.

    “The estimated PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score was about 0.1 SD below the U.S. general population average while the estimated PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health score was at the general population average in Sample 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The estimated reliability of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score was 0.97 in Sample 1 and 0.98 in Sample 2.

    “For the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score reliability estimates were 0.97 (Sample 1) and 0.98 (Sample 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sample 2, Guttman's weakest lower bound and a scree plot suggested two dimensions, while Tucker and Lewis's reliability coefficients indicated that more than two underlying dimensions were possible.

    “In Sample 2, Guttman’s weakest lower bound (eigenvalues of 4.67, 1.14, 0.61, 0.54, 0.34, 0.29, 0.22, and 0.19) and a scree plot of eigenvalues based on squared multiple correlations as communality estimates (4.28, 0.78, 0.20, 0.07) suggested two dimensions. Tucker and Lewis’s reliability coefficients indicated the possibility of more than two underlying dimensions (0.66 for one factor, 0.87 for”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The estimated reliability of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score was 0.93 in Sample 1 and 0.95 in Sample 2.

    “The estimated reliabilities [33] of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary scores were 0.93 (Sample 1) and 0.95 (Sample 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] Mosier, C. I. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika, 8(3), 161–168. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score correlated 0.82 with the SF-36 physical component summary and 0.54 with the SF-36 mental component summary; the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score correlated 0.82 with the SF-36 mental component summary and 0.38 with the SF-36 physical component summary.

    “Note that the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary score correlated 0.82 with the SF-36 physical component summary score versus 0.54 with the SF-36 mental component summary score, and the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score correlated 0.82 with the SF-36 mental component summary score versus 0.38 with the SF-36 physical component summary score.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
      “For example, the corresponding PROMIS-29 v2.0 and SF-36 physical and mental health summary scores correlated strongly with one another (r = 0.82 for both in Sample 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sample 1, Guttman's weakest lower bound and a scree plot suggested one factor, while Tucker and Lewis's reliability coefficients supported two underlying dimensions.

    “Guttman’s weakest lower bound in sample 1 indicated a single factor (eigenvalues were 5.08, 0.81, 0.64, 0.49, 0.35, 0.23, 0.22, and 0.18). A scree plot of eigenvalues based on squared multiple correlations as communality estimates (4.71, 0.46, 0.09, 0.05) suggested a single dimension, but Tucker and Lewis’s reliability coefficients provided support for two underlying dimensions (0.82 for one fact”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The confirmatory factor models supported two factors: one for physical health, marked by physical function, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role participation ability; and one for mental health, marked mainly by anxiety and depressive symptoms.

    “Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for a physical health factor defined by physical function, pain (interference and intensity), and ability to participate in social roles and activities, and a mental health factor defined primarily by emotional distress (anxiety and depressive symptoms).”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “The two-factor rotated solution for the PROMIS-29 scales showed that the first factor (physical health) was represented by pain interference, physical function, pain intensity, and ability to participate in social roles and activities/satisfaction with participation in social roles and the second factor (mental health) was defined by anxiety and depressive symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study provides preliminary evidence that the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores are reliable and valid, with high reliability and associations with other measures and chronic conditions that match pre-specified hypotheses.

    “This study develops and provides preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores that can be used in future studies to assess impacts of health care interventions and track changes in health over time.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
      “This study provides PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health and mental health summary scores that are extremely reliable and have associations with other health-related quality of life measures and chronic conditions that are congruent with a-priori hypotheses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Allowing the underlying physical and mental health summary scores to be correlated reflects the reality of health and removes the inconsistency between scale scores and summary measures.

    “Allowing the underlying physical and mental health summary scores to be correlated reflects the reality of health and eliminates the inconsistency between scale scores and summary measures [17].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Farivar, S. S., Cunningham, W. E., & Hays, R. D. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 health survey, V. 1. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5:54. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mental health scales are negatively weighted on the SF-36 physical health component summary score, and physical health scales receive negative weighting on the SF-36 mental health component summary score.

    “This is a critical difference because mental health scales are negatively weighted on the SF-36 physical health component summary score, and physical health scales receive negative weighting on the SF-36 mental health component summary score.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research, 10, 395–404. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The PROMIS-29 v2.0 summary scores were constructed to allow physical and mental health to be correlated, whereas the SF-36 summary scores force a zero correlation between them.

    “Second, the new summary scores were constructed allowing physical and mental health to be correlated rather than forcing a zero correlation between them as was the case for the SF-36 summary scores [35].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research, 10, 395–404. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results provide strong support for some psychometric properties of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 summary scores, but further work is needed to assess the scoring system in different samples.

    “While the results of this study provide strong support for some of the psychometric properties of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 summary scores, further work is needed to assess the scoring system in different samples.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior factor analyses of SF-36 scale scores supported two underlying factors: physical health defined mainly by physical functioning, pain, and physical role limitations, and mental health reflected mainly by emotional well-being and emotional role limitations.

    “Factor analyses of scale scores for the SF-36 health survey, provided strong support for two underlying factors with physical health defined primarily by measures of physical functioning, pain, and role limitations due to physical health problems, and by mental health reflected primarily by measures of emotional well-being and role limitations caused by emotional problems [17–18].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [17] Farivar, S. S., Cunningham, W. E., & Hays, R. D. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 health survey, V. 1. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5:54. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Hays, R. D., Marshall, G. N., Wang, E. Y. I., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). Four-year cross-lagged associations between physical and mental health in the medical outcomes study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 441–449. source

      Not checked in the free run.

19 of 19

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?

  • The PROMIS-29 has been validated for use in assessing impacts of health care interventions.

    “It has been validated for use in assessing impacts of health care interventions. 18”

    From Overview and Feasibility of a Novel Transdisciplinary Integrative Approach to High Impact Chronic Pain in Vermont (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Abstract Conclusions provide preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores and say they can be used in future studies to assess intervention impacts. They also recommend further evaluation; the paper does not establish that the PROMIS-29 has been validated specifically for measuring the impacts of health care interventions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Participants complete validated health survey measures at the beginning and at the end of the program.

    “In this initial pilot evaluation, participants complete validated health survey measures at the beginning and at the end of the program.”

    From Overview and Feasibility of a Novel Transdisciplinary Integrative Approach to High Impact Chronic Pain in Vermont (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Abstract Conclusions report preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores. The paper does not establish that participants in the citing study's pilot completed surveys at both the beginning and end of its program. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The PROMIS-29 assesses multiple functional domains including physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance.

    “The PROMIS-29 assesses multiple functional domains including physical function; fatigue; pain interference; depressive symptoms; anxiety; ability to participate in social roles and activities; and sleep disturbance. 18”

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract misstates physical summary score reliability

    Major

    The abstract reports physical health summary score reliability as 0.98, but the Results report 0.93 for Sample 1 and 0.95 for Sample 2. The reported 0.98 instead matches the Results value for mental health in Sample 2.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., Schalet, B. D., & Cella, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Hays, Ron D.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2018-03-22
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
1885-1891
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2793808927
Cited by
684
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 141 · 2024: 136 · 2023: 106 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8
FWCI
22.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (1U2-CCA186878-01)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30-AG021684)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
health-related quality of life, factor analysis, physical function, pain intensity, pain interference, fatigue, depressive symptoms, anxiety, sleep disorders, social role participation, reliability statistics, validity, chronic disease
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Young Adult

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.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

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