Reliability and Validity of Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Forms in Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) of selected Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Forms (SF) developed by the US National Institutes of Health. The analysis was done across core sets and patient-identified domains of the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society. METHODS: Participants in the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS), an ongoing, prospective longitudinal observational study, completed 6 PROMIS SF assessing global health, depression, fatigue, physical function, pain intensity, and pain interference during their PSOAS visits from September 2017 to January 2019. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and Cronbach's alpha coefficient, respectively. PROMIS SF were compared to legacy measures collected. Construct validity was evaluated through examination of score distributions and floor effects, and through examination of the Spearman correlation coefficients between PROMIS measures and existing legacy AS measures. Discriminant validity was tested across Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) groups. RESULTS: Participants (n = 119) were mostly male (69%), white (81%), and with a mean (SD) age of 51 (± 15) years. Legacy measures demonstrated floor effects that were not present in PROMIS SF. Good test-retest reliability (r > 0.8) and excellent internal consistency (α > 0.9) was noted in the PROMIS SF. The 6 PROMIS SF correlated moderately to strongly [ρ 0.68 (Depression) to -0.87 (Physical Function)] with appropriate legacy measures. PROMIS scores measures worsened significantly (p < 0.05) with higher ASDAS groups. CONCLUSION: This study supports the reliability and construct validity of PROMIS SF to assess AS symptoms from a single-center sample of patients with AS. Further research is needed to test responsiveness, feasibility/resource burden, and different cultural/societal contexts for patients with AS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".