» Articles » PMID: 27240448

Reliability and Validity of PROMIS Measures Administered by Telephone Interview in a Longitudinal Localized Prostate Cancer Study

Overview
Journal Qual Life Res
Date 2016 Jun 1
PMID 27240448
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability and validity of six PROMIS measures (anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, and sleep disturbance) telephone-administered to a diverse, population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer patients.

Methods: Newly diagnosed men were enrolled in the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study. PROMIS measures were telephone-administered pre-treatment (baseline), and at 3-months and 12-months post-treatment initiation (N = 778). Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Dimensionality was examined with bifactor models and explained common variance (ECV). Ordinal logistic regression models were used to detect potential differential item functioning (DIF) for key demographic groups. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed by correlations with the legacy instruments Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer and SF-12v2. Known-groups validity was examined by age, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, and treatment.

Results: Each PROMIS measure had high Cronbach's alpha values (0.86-0.96) and was sufficiently unidimensional. Floor effects were observed for anxiety, depression, and pain interference measures; ceiling effects were observed for physical function. No DIF was detected. Convergent validity was established with moderate to strong correlations between PROMIS and legacy measures (0.41-0.77) of similar constructs. Discriminant validity was demonstrated with weak correlations between measures of dissimilar domains (-0.20--0.31). PROMIS measures detected differences across age, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity groups; no differences were found by treatment.

Conclusions: This study provides support for the reliability and construct validity of six PROMIS measures in prostate cancer, as well as the utility of telephone administration for assessing HRQoL in low literacy and hard-to-reach populations.

Citing Articles

Digital Solution to Support Medication Adherence and Self-Management in Patients with Cancer (SAMSON): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Dang T, Wickramasinghe N, Jayaraman P, Burbury K, Alexander M, Whitechurch A JMIR Form Res. 2025; 9:e65302.

PMID: 39969972 PMC: 11888109. DOI: 10.2196/65302.


Identity Pathology and Emptiness as Novel Predictors of Suicidal Ideation.

Meddaoui B, Stewart J, Kaufman E Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2025; 55(1):e13164.

PMID: 39825626 PMC: 11742519. DOI: 10.1111/sltb.13164.


Using Serum Metabolomic Signatures to Investigate Effects of Acupuncture on Pain-Fatigue-Sleep Disturbance in Breast Cancer Survivors.

Li H, Doorenbos A, Xia Y, Sun J, Choi H, Harris R Metabolites. 2024; 14(12).

PMID: 39728478 PMC: 11679957. DOI: 10.3390/metabo14120698.


Pharmacist-facilitated Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) monitoring: developing an EHR SmartForm© to monitor side effects of oral oncolytics during routine telehealth encounters.

Stover A, Liang D, Mueller D, Kurtzman R, Ikemeh C, Canter C Qual Life Res. 2024; 34(1):201-217.

PMID: 39404983 PMC: 11802710. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03789-8.


Safety and adherence to medications and self-care advice in oncology (SAMSON): pilot randomised controlled trial protocol.

Dang T, Wickramasinghe N, Jayaraman P, Burbury K, Alexander M, Whitechurch A BMJ Open. 2024; 14(7):e079122.

PMID: 39043598 PMC: 11268069. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079122.


References
1.
Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr K, Patrick D, Perrin E . Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002; 11(3):193-205. DOI: 10.1023/a:1015291021312. View

2.
Lubeck D, Kim H, Grossfeld G, Ray P, Penson D, Flanders S . Health related quality of life differences between black and white men with prostate cancer: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol. 2001; 166(6):2281-5. View

3.
Emons W, Sijtsma K, Meijer R . On the consistency of individual classification using short scales. Psychol Methods. 2007; 12(1):105-20. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.105. View

4.
Jayadevappa R, Chhatre S, Wein A, Malkowicz S . Predictors of patient reported outcomes and cost of care in younger men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Prostate. 2009; 69(10):1067-76. DOI: 10.1002/pros.20955. View

5.
Hampson L, Cowan J, Zhao S, Carroll P, Cooperberg M . Impact of age on quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(3):480-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.008. View