↓ Skip to main content

Establishing a Common Metric for Physical Function: Linking the HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF Subscale to PROMIS® Physical Function

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Establishing a Common Metric for Physical Function: Linking the HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF Subscale to PROMIS® Physical Function
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3360-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin D. Schalet, Dennis A. Revicki, Karon F. Cook, Eswar Krishnan, Jim F. Fries, David Cella

Abstract

Physical function (PF) is a common health concept measured in clinical trials and clinical care. It is measured with different instruments that are not directly comparable, making comparative effectiveness research (CER) challenging when PF is the outcome of interest. Our goal was to establish a common reporting metric, so that scores on commonly used physical function measures can be converted into PROMIS scores. Following a single-sample linking design, all participants completed items from the NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Physical Function (PROMIS PF) item bank and at least one other commonly used "legacy" measure: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) or the Short Form-36 physical function ten-item PF scale (SF-36 PF). A common metric was created using analyses based on item response theory (IRT), producing score cross-walk tables. Participants (N = 733) were part of an internet panel, many of whom reported one or more chronic health conditions. PROMIS PF, SF-36 PF, and the HAQ-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Our results supported the hypothesis that all three scales measure essentially the same concept. Cross-walk tables for use in CER are therefore justified. HAQ-DI and SF-36 PF results can be expressed on the PROMIS PF metric for the purposes of CER and other efforts to compare PF results across studies that utilize any one of these three measures. Clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into their clinics can collect patient data on any one of these three instruments and estimate the equivalent on the other two.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Other 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 8 10%
Computer Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,223,569
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,262
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,543
of 269,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#56
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.