Assessing the measurement properties of PROMIS Computer Adaptive Tests, short forms and legacy patient reported outcome measures in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The commonly used (‘legacy’) PROMs evaluating outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA), have several limitations regarding their measurement properties and interpretation of scores. One innovation in PROMs is the use of Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is a validated system of CATs. The aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of PROMIS and legacy instruments in patients undergoing THA. Methodology Patients in this multicenter study filled out a questionnaire twice, including Dutch-Flemish PROMIS v1.2 Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and v1.1 Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) CATs and short forms, PROMIS v1.0 Pain Intensity, and legacy PROMs (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), HOOS-Physical function Shortform (HOOS-PS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and two numeric rating scales measuring pain). The reliability, measurement precision (Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)), smallest detectable change (SDC), and burden of PROMIS instruments were presented head-to-head to legacy PROMs. Furthermore, construct validity was assessed. Results 208 patients were included. All instruments had a sufficient test-retest reliability (range ICC: 0.83–0.96). The SEM of PROMIS CATs and short forms ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 T-score points, the SEM of legacy instruments 2.6–11.1. The SDC of PROMIS instruments ranged from 2.1 to 7.3 T-score points, the SDC of legacy instruments 7.2–30.9. The construct validity of PROMIS CAT and short forms were found sufficient, except for the PROMIS-PI short form. The burden of PROMIS CATs was smaller than PROMIS short forms (range 4.8–5.2 versus 8–20 items, respectively). The burden of legacy instruments measuring physical functioning ranged from 5 to 40 items. Conclusions The PROMIS-PF is less burdensome, with high measurement precision, and almost no minimal or maximal scores, and an equal reliability compared to legacy instruments measuring physical functioning in patients undergoing THA. The PROMIS Pain Intensity 1a is comparable to the legacy pain instruments in terms of burden, reliability and SDC. Measuring the construct Pain Interference may not have additional value in this population because of its high correlation with instruments measuring physical functioning. The SDC values presented in this study can be used for individual patient monitoring.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".