The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 8 Not checked yet · 4 Own interpretation
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Male gender, number of chronic conditions, and age were significantly negatively associated with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Female gender, number of chronic conditions, and age were significantly negatively associated with the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significantly worse PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary scores were reported by those with all of the chronic conditions except for cancer.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The estimated PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health and mental health summary scores were about 0.4 SDs below the U.S. general population average in Sample 1 (Table 4).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores have clear advantages over existing summary scores.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reliabilities for these two summary scores were 0.98 (physical health) and 0.97 (mental health).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous research [19], fatigue and sleep disturbance loaded about equally on both factors (factor loading matrix available upon request).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Hays, R. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1990). The structure of self-reported health in chronic disease patients. Psychological Assessment, 2, 22–30. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score reliability estimates were 0.97 (Sample 1) and 0.98 (Sample 2).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The estimated reliabilities [33] of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary scores were 0.93 (Sample 1) and 0.95 (Sample 2).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Mosier, C. I. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika, 8(3), 161–168. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Abstract > Conclusions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
In the paper
“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].”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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].”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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”
From Overview and Feasibility of a Novel Transdisciplinary Integrative Approach to High Impact Chronic Pain in Vermont (2024) · cites this paper as [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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Abstract > Results
“Reliabilities for these two summary scores were 0.98 (physical health) and 0.97 (mental health).”
§ PROMIS®-29 v2.0 Profile Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores > Results
“The estimated reliabilities [33] of the PROMIS-29 v2.0 physical health summary scores were 0.93 (Sample 1) and 0.95 (Sample 2). For the PROMIS-29 v2.0 mental health summary score reliability estimates were 0.97 (Sample 1) and 0.98 (Sample 2).”
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
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-citationWare, J. E. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008 · Cited by 4,455
The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8 · Cited by 3,164
Rummel, R. J. (1970) · Cited by 2,458
Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question
DeSalvo, K. B., Bloser, N., Reynolds, K., He, J., & Muntner, P. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00291.x · Cited by 2,392
Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., Cella, D., & PROMIS Cooperative Group (2011) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191111411667 · Cited by 2,132
Self-citationHays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9 · Cited by 1,957
Self-citationDevelopment of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference
Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., Cella, D., Rothrock, N., Keefe, F., Callahan, L., et al. (2010) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.025 · Cited by 1,199
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
PROMIS® Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains
Cella, D., Choi, S. W., Condon, D. M., Schalet, B., Hays, R. D., Rothrock, N. E., Yount, S., Cook, K. F., Gershon, R. C., Amtmann, D., et al. (2019) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.004 · Cited by 665
Self-citationHealth-Related Quality of Life Measurement in Public Health
Kaplan, R. M., & Hays, R. D. (2021) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052120-012811 · Cited by 329
Self-citationOtto, C., Reiss, F., Voss, C., Wüstner, A., Meyrose, A.-K., Hölling, H., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2021) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-020-01630-4 · Cited by 235
Verberne, W. R., Das‐Gupta, Z., Allegretti, A. S., Bart, H. A. J., Biesen, W. V., García-García, G., Gibbons, E. J., Parra, E., Hemmelder, M. H., Jager, K. J., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.10.007 · Cited by 167
An integrative collaborative care model for people with mental illness and physical comorbidities
Ee, C., Lake, J., Firth, J., Hargraves, F., de Manincor, M., Meade, T., Marx, W., & Sarris, J. J. (2020) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/s13033-020-00410-6 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC5999556
- 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
- green
- pure.amsterdamumc.nl
- Licence
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
