| Title |
Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-015-1010-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn E. Flynn, Mary Amanda Dew, Li Lin, Maria Fawzy, Felicia L. Graham, Elizabeth A. Hahn, Ron D. Hays, Robert L. Kormos, Honghu Liu, Mary McNulty, Kevin P. Weinfurt |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the reliability and construct validity of measures from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(®) (PROMIS(®)) for patients with heart failure before and after heart transplantation. We assessed reliability of the PROMIS short forms using Cronbach's alpha and the average marginal reliability. To assess the construct validity of PROMIS computerized adaptive tests and short-form measures, we calculated Pearson product moment correlations between PROMIS measures of physical function, fatigue, depression, and social function and existing PRO measures of similar domains (i.e., convergent validity) as well as different domains (i.e., discriminate validity) in patients with heart failure awaiting heart transplant. We evaluated the responsiveness of these measures to change after heart transplant using effect sizes. Forty-eight patients were included in the analyses. Across the many domains examined, correlations between conceptually similar domains were larger than correlations between different domains of health, demonstrating construct validity. Health status improved substantially after heart transplant (standardized effect sizes, 0.63-1.24), demonstrating the responsiveness of the PROMIS measures. Scores from the computerized adaptive tests and the short forms were similar. This study provides evidence for the reliability and construct validity (including responsiveness to change) of four PROMIS domains in patients with heart failure before and after heart transplant. PROMIS measures are a reasonable choice in this context and will facilitate comparisons across studies and health conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#6,147,146
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#583
of 2,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,439
of 267,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#5
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,846 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 267,100 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.