Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes

Man Hung, Judith F. Baumhauer, James W. Brodsky, Christine Cheng, Scott J. Ellis, Jeremy D. Franklin, Shirley D. Hon, Susan N. Ishikawa, Daniel L Latt, Phinit Phisitkul, Charles L. Saltzman, Nelson F. SooHoo, Kenneth J. Hunt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT). Methods: Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS's National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument. Results: Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM-ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, (P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM-ADL showed significant improvement (P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients' physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement. Conclusions: Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)592-599
Number of pages8
JournalFoot and Ankle International
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Psychometrics
Ankle
Foot
Aptitude
Activities of Daily Living
Efficiency
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Quality of Health Care
Reproducibility of Results
Orthopedics
Pain
Research

Keywords

  • Computerized adaptive testing
  • FAAM
  • FFI
  • OFAR
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Physical function
  • PROMIS
  • Psychometrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Brodsky, J. W., Cheng, C., Ellis, S. J., Franklin, J. D., ... Hunt, K. J. (2014). Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Foot and Ankle International, 35(6), 592-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714528492

Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. / Hung, Man; Baumhauer, Judith F.; Brodsky, James W.; Cheng, Christine; Ellis, Scott J.; Franklin, Jeremy D.; Hon, Shirley D.; Ishikawa, Susan N.; Latt, Daniel L; Phisitkul, Phinit; Saltzman, Charles L.; SooHoo, Nelson F.; Hunt, Kenneth J.

In: Foot and Ankle International, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2014, p. 592-599.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hung, M, Baumhauer, JF, Brodsky, JW, Cheng, C, Ellis, SJ, Franklin, JD, Hon, SD, Ishikawa, SN, Latt, DL, Phisitkul, P, Saltzman, CL, SooHoo, NF & Hunt, KJ 2014, 'Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes', Foot and Ankle International, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 592-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714528492
Hung, Man ; Baumhauer, Judith F. ; Brodsky, James W. ; Cheng, Christine ; Ellis, Scott J. ; Franklin, Jeremy D. ; Hon, Shirley D. ; Ishikawa, Susan N. ; Latt, Daniel L ; Phisitkul, Phinit ; Saltzman, Charles L. ; SooHoo, Nelson F. ; Hunt, Kenneth J. / Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. In: Foot and Ankle International. 2014 ; Vol. 35, No. 6. pp. 592-599.
@article{f5317b38549c4859b5a014dccd72ab0c,
title = "Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes",
abstract = "Background: Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT). Methods: Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS's National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument. Results: Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM-ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, (P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM-ADL showed significant improvement (P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients' physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement. Conclusions: Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments.",
keywords = "Computerized adaptive testing, FAAM, FFI, OFAR, Patient-reported outcomes, Physical function, PROMIS, Psychometrics",
author = "Man Hung and Baumhauer, {Judith F.} and Brodsky, {James W.} and Christine Cheng and Ellis, {Scott J.} and Franklin, {Jeremy D.} and Hon, {Shirley D.} and Ishikawa, {Susan N.} and Latt, {Daniel L} and Phinit Phisitkul and Saltzman, {Charles L.} and SooHoo, {Nelson F.} and Hunt, {Kenneth J.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1177/1071100714528492",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "592--599",
journal = "Foot and Ankle International",
issn = "1071-1007",
publisher = "AOFAS - American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes

AU - Hung, Man

AU - Baumhauer, Judith F.

AU - Brodsky, James W.

AU - Cheng, Christine

AU - Ellis, Scott J.

AU - Franklin, Jeremy D.

AU - Hon, Shirley D.

AU - Ishikawa, Susan N.

AU - Latt, Daniel L

AU - Phisitkul, Phinit

AU - Saltzman, Charles L.

AU - SooHoo, Nelson F.

AU - Hunt, Kenneth J.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Background: Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT). Methods: Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS's National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument. Results: Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM-ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, (P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM-ADL showed significant improvement (P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients' physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement. Conclusions: Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments.

AB - Background: Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency of three PRO measures: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activity of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL), the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale (FFI-5pt), and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT). Methods: Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS's National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research (OFAR) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle. Patients were administered the FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery. Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model. Responsiveness was calculated using paired samples t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument. Results: Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments. Item reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were all .99. Pearson reliabilities for FAAM-ADL, FFI-5pt, and PF CAT were .95, .93, and .96, respectively. On average, patients completed the FAAM-ADL in 179 seconds, the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds, and the PF CAT in 44 seconds, (P < .001). The PF CAT and FAAM-ADL showed significant improvement (P = .01 and P = .001, respectively) in patients' physical function after treatment; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement. Conclusions: Overall, the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability, responsiveness, and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients. It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures, but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments.

KW - Computerized adaptive testing

KW - FAAM

KW - FFI

KW - OFAR

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Physical function

KW - PROMIS

KW - Psychometrics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903511872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903511872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1071100714528492

DO - 10.1177/1071100714528492

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84903511872

VL - 35

SP - 592

EP - 599

JO - Foot and Ankle International

JF - Foot and Ankle International

SN - 1071-1007

IS - 6

ER -