Cited by 5,128Psychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and Validation

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008

Open access
Cella, David, Riley, William, Stone, Arthur, Rothrock, Nan, Reeve, Bryce, Yount, Susan, Amtmann, Dagmar, Bode, Rita +14 more·2010·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential when evaluating many new treatments in health care; yet, current measures have been limited by a lack of precision, standardization, and comparability of scores across studies and diseases. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) provides item banks that offer the potential for efficient (minimizes item number without compromising reliability), flexible (enables optional use of interchangeable items), and precise (has minimal error in estimate) measurement of commonly studied PROs. We report results from the first large-scale testing of PROMIS items.Study design and setting Fourteen item pools were tested in the U.S. general population and clinical groups using an online panel and clinic recruitment. A scale-setting subsample was created reflecting demographics proportional to the 2000 U.S. census.Results Using item-response theory (graded response model), 11 item banks were calibrated on a sample of 21,133, measuring components of self-reported physical, mental, and social health, along with a 10-item Global Health Scale. Short forms from each bank were developed and compared with the overall bank and with other well-validated and widely accepted ("legacy") measures. All item banks demonstrated good reliability across most of the score distributions. Construct validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations with legacy measures.Conclusion PROMIS item banks and their short forms provide evidence that they are reliable and precise measures of generic symptoms and functional reports comparable to legacy instruments. Further testing will continue to validate and test PROMIS items and banks in diverse clinical populations.

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 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • The study used the PROMIS short forms to assess anxiety, pain, and depression.

    “Anxiety, pain, and depression were assessed using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Anxiety Short Form 8a (PROMIS-ASF), Pain Interference Short Form (PROMIS-PISF), and Depression Short Form 8a (PROMIS-DSF) 36.”

    From Effects of a trauma-informed mindful recovery program on comorbid pain, anxiety, and substance use during primary care buprenorphine treatment: A proof-of-concept study (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Results (Validity and Interpretation Tables; page not provided) describe PROMIS short forms for anxiety, pain interference, and depression, supporting the citation as an identification of those measures. However, the paper describes a 7-item anxiety short form, not the specifically named Anxiety Short Form 8a; it does not establish that exact version. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PROMIS short-form questionnaires have excellent psychometric properties superior to many other measures available to assess emotional functioning.

    “PROMIS has excellent psychometric properties superior to many other measures available to assess emotional functioning [61].”

    From Online parent-targeted cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention to improve quality of life in families of young cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. (2015) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Results report high reliability and strong correlations with legacy measures for the emotional-distress item banks and their short forms. But the Abstract Conclusion describes PROMIS short forms as comparable to legacy instruments, not superior to other measures of emotional functioning. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Scales with four, six, and eight items (short forms) were developed from item banks using item response theory and validated in general and chronic illness populations.

    “Scales with four, six, and eight items (short forms) were developed from item banks using item response theory and validated in general and chronic illness populations [28, 29].”

    From Feasibility and Acceptability of an Abbreviated, Four-Week Mindfulness Program for Chronic Pain Management. (2020) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results report IRT-calibrated item banks and derived short forms, with construct-validity evidence from comparisons with established measures. Wave 1 testing included general-population and clinical samples. However, the Results specify short forms of 6–10 items, not the claimed set of 4-, 6-, and 8-item forms; the Discussion also says clinical validation studies were still underway. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The PROMIS measures used in the study have undergone rigorous reliability and validity testing.

    “These measures have undergone rigorous reliability and validity testing [29–31].”
  • PROMIS measures have undergone rigorous psychometric testing, and evidence supports their reliability and validity in cancer survivors.

    “These NIH-funded measures have undergone rigorous psychometric testing [21], and evidence supports their reliability and validity in cancer survivors [19, 22].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]North American Nursing Diagnosis Association Nursing diagnoses: Definition and Classification, 1997–1998 Philadelphia, PA McGraw-Hill 1996
  2. [18]Sherbourne CD Stewart AL Ware JE Pain measures Measuring functional status and well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach Durham, NC Duke University Press 1992 230 4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., Cook, K., DeVellis, R., DeWalt, D., Fries, J. F., Gershon, R., Hahn, E. A., Lai, J.-S., Pilkonis, P., Revicki, D., Rose, M., Weinfurt, K., & Hays, R.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
63
Issue
11
Pages
1179-1194
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162420979
Cited by
5,128
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 455 · 2025: 526 · 2024: 536 · 2023: 490 · 2022: 516 · 2021: 515 · 2020: 492 · 2019: 368 · 2018: 302 · 2017: 224 · 2016: 190 · 2015: 161 · 2014: 131 · 2013: 107 · 2012: 53
FWCI
92.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Northwestern University
  • University of Washington (U01AR52170, U01AR52155, U01AR52171, U01AR52158)
  • University of Pittsburgh (U01AR52155, U01AR52158, U01AR52170, U01AR52171)
  • Stony Brook University (U01AR52170)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR52186, U01AR52181, U01AR52155, U02AR52177, U01AR052186, U01AR52171, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR52170, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR52158, U01AR052181)
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
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
PROMIS, patient-reported outcomes, item bank, item response theory, graded response model, scale calibration, short form, construct validity, reliability statistics, global health, physical health, mental health, social health, functional status
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Status, Health Surveys, Humans, Information Systems, Male, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Disclosure, United States, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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