Validity of the PROMIS-29 in a large Australian cohort of patients with systemic sclerosis
Post author correction
Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Article Subject: Epidemiology and Diagnostic Methods
AuthorsKathleen Morrisroe, Wendy Stevens, Molla Huq, Joanne Sahhar, Gene-Siew Ngian, Jane Zochling, Janet Roddy, the Australian Scleroderma Interest Group (ASIG) Susanna Proudman, Mandana Nikpour,
We aimed to evaluate the construct validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29 (PROMIS-29) in Australian systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients.
SSc patients, identified through the Australian Scleroderma Cohort Study database, completed two quality-of-life instruments concurrently, the PROMIS-29 and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). The construct validity of the PROMIS-29 was assessed by the correlations between the PROMIS-29 and the SF-36 and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the internal reliability of all instruments in Australian SSc patients and non-parametric correlation, including Spearman’s correlation, was used to test the construct validity of PROMIS-29 against the SF-36 and HAQ-DI.
A total of 477 completed questionnaires were returned, equating to a response rate of 59.6%. The mean (±SD) age of respondents at the time of the survey was 64.1 (±11.1) years. They were predominantly female (87.4%), with limited disease subtype (lcSSc) (77.8%) and long disease duration from onset of first non-Raynaud’s phenomenon symptom at the time of survey (10.9 ± 11.1 years). For the correlation analysis between the PROMIS-29 and the legacy instruments, all Spearman correlation coefficients were in the logical direction and highly significant suggesting that the PROMIS-29 is a good alternative to other validated measures of disease burden.
Our study indicates that the PROMIS-29 questionnaire is a valid instrument for measuring health-related quality of life in Australian females with lcSSc of long duration.
- • Accepted on 13/05/2017
- • Available online on 02/06/2017
This article is available as full text PDF.
- Morrisroe, Kathleen [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
- Stevens, Wendy [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 2
- Huq, Molla [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2
- Sahhar, Joanne [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3
- Ngian, Gene-Siew [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3
- Zochling, Jane [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4
- Roddy, Janet [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5
- the Australian Scleroderma Interest Group (ASIG) *
- Proudman, Susanna [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 6, 7
- Nikpour, Mandana [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, 2, * Corresponding Author (email@example.com)
Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria - Australia
Department of Rheumatology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria - Australia
Monash University and Monash Health, Victoria - Australia
Department of Rheumatology, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, Hobart - Australia
Department of Rheumatology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth - Australia
Rheumatology Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA - Australia
Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA - Australia
The complete list of investigators in the Australian Scleroderma Interest Group (ASIG) is available in the Acknowledgements section