Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Self-reports of health provide useful information about function and well-being that can improve communication between patients and clinicians. Global health items provide summary information that are predictive of health care utilization and mortality. There is a need for parsimonious global health scales for use in large sample surveys. This study evaluates the reliability and validity of brief measures of global physical health and mental health in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®) project. METHODS: A total of 21,133 persons included in the PROMIS development sample: 52% female; 82% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic; median age of 50 years. We identified two global physical health items (GPH-2) and two global mental health items (GMH-2) with highest discrimination parameters and compared their reliabilities and construct validity to that of the original 4-item scales (GPH-4 and GMH-4) and a single global health item (Global01). RESULTS: , 0.70 for GPH-2, 0.79 for GPH-4, 0.80 for GMH-2, and 0.86 for GMH-4. The product-moment correlation between the GPH-2 and GPH-4 was 0.94 and between GMH-2 and GMH-4 was 0.97. The 2-item and 4-item versions of the scales had similar correlations with PROMIS domain scores, the EQ-5D-3L and comorbidities, but the 4-item scales were more strongly correlated with these measures. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a single item to a large cross-sectional population survey can cost as much as $100,000. The 2-item variants of the PROMIS global health scales reduce the cost of use on national surveys by 50%, a substantial cost savings. These briefer scales are also more practical for use in clinical practice. The 2-item versions of the PROMIS global health scales display adequate reliability for group comparisons and their associations with other indicators of health are similar to that of the original 4-item scales. The briefer scales are psychometrically sound and reduce burden of survey administration.
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
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?
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].”
From PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores (2018) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 265
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [13]Nunnally JC Assessment of reliability. In: Psychometric theory (2nd ed.) 1978 New York McGraw-Hill
- [14]Nelson, E. C., Wasson, J. H., Johnson, D. J., & Hays, R. D. (1996). Dartmouth COOP functional health measurement charts: Brief measures for clinical practice. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and Pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 161–168). New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
- Authors
- Hays, R. D., Schalet, B. D., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hays, Ron D.
- Venue
- Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
- Published
- 2017-09-12
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-2
- ISSN
- 2509-8020 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5934936
- OpenAlex
- W2745271281
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 4.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (1U2C-CA186878-01)
- National Institute on Aging (P30-AG021684)
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20-MD000182)
- 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, global mental health, scale length reduction, reliability statistics, construct validity, patient-reported outcomes, EQ-5D-3L, comorbidities
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
