Structural validity and construct validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS^® physical function-upper extremity version 2.0 item bank in Dutch patients with upper extremity injuries

References

• van der Zee-Neuen A, Putrik P, Ramiro S, et al. Impact of chronic diseases and multimorbidity on health and health care costs: the additional role of musculoskeletal disorders. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68:1823–1831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huisstede BM, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Koes BW, et al. Incidence and prevalence of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic appraisal of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Moumni M, Van Eck ME, Wendt KW, et al. Structural validity of the Dutch version of the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE-NL) in patients with hand and wrist injuries. Phys Ther. 2016;96:908–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:1305–1314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) (vol 29, pg 602, 1996). Am J Ind Med. 1996;30:372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, et al. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:577–586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23:575–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang H, Grant JA, Miller BS, et al. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2572–2582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoomes-de Graaf M, Scholten-Peeters GGM, Schellingerhout JM, et al. Evaluation of measurement properties of self-administered PROMs aimed at patients with non-specific shoulder pain and “activity limitations”: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:2141–2160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, et al. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:335–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:623–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45:S3–S11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, et al. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:17–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose M, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, et al. The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:516–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Roorda LD, de Vet HC. Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1733–1741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oude Voshaar MAH, ten Klooster PM, Glas CAW, et al. Calibration of the PROMIS physical function item bank in Dutch patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crins MHP, Terwee CB, Klausch T, et al. The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Physical Function item bank exhibited strong psychometric properties in patients with chronic pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:47–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crins MHP, van der Wees PJ, Klausch T, et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS Physical Function item bank in patients receiving physical therapy. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0192187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckmann JT, Hung M, Voss MW, et al. Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system upper extremity computer adaptive test. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41:739–744 e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung M, Voss MW, Bounsanga J, et al. Examination of the PROMIS upper extremity item bank. J Hand Ther. 2017;30:485–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve BB, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5): S22–S31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [The Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association (WMA). Ethical principles of medical research involving human subjects]. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2014;36:298–301.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PROMIS. PROMIS Instrument Development and Validation Scientific Standards Version 2.0 (revised May 2013); 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Van Son MAC, De Vries J, Roukema JA, et al. Health status and (health-related) quality of life during the recovery of distal radius fractures: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2399–2416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Changulani M, Okonkwo U, Keswani T, et al. Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: which one to choose?. Int Orthop. 2008;32:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang-Kim A, Pegreffi F, Moroni A, et al. Measuring wrist and hand function: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42:253–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoneveld K, Wittink H, Takken T. Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation. J Hand Ther. 2009;22:221; quiz 236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veehof MM, Sleegers EJA, van Veldhoven NHMJ, et al. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther. 2002;15:347–354.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Eck ME, Lameijer CM, El Moumni M. Structural validity of the Dutch version of the disability of arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV) in adult patients with hand and wrist injuries. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19:207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brink SM, Voskamp EG, Houpt P, et al. Psychometric properties of the Patient Rated wrist/hand evaluation - Dutch Language Version (PRWH/E-DLV). J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009;34:556–557.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR, et al. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg. 1999;42:619–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung BT, Morris SF. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74:176–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Giesen FJ, Nelissen RG, Arendzen JH, et al. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire-Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1121–1126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung BT, Morris SF. Reliability and internal validity of the Michigan hand questionnaire. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73:385–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maia MVDP, de Moraes VY, dos Santos JBG, et al. Minimal important difference after hand surgery: a prospective assessment for DASH, MHQ, and SF-12. Sicot-J. 2016;2:32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Ven-Stevens LA, Munneke M, Terwee CB, et al. Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with hand injury: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:151–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogarty KY, Hines CV, Kromrey JD, et al. The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: the influcence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educ Psychol Meas. 2005;65:202–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comrey AL, Lee HB. First course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001;66:507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. J Pers Assess. 2016;98:223–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise SP, Scheines R, Widaman KF, et al. Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: a bifactor perspective. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013;73:5–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelle W. Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research; 2017. Software
   Google Scholar
• Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, Michigan: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson RA, A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Market Lett. 2000;11:261–275.
   Google Scholar
• Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:98–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paz SH, Spritzer KL, Morales LS, et al. Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS((R))) Spanish-language physical functioning items. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1819–1830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaat AJ, Rothrock NE, Vrahas MS, et al. Longitudinal validation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in upper extremity trauma. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31:e321–e326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gausden EB, Levack AE, Sin DN, et al. Validating the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests for upper extremity fracture care. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1191–1197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook KF, Kallen MA, Amtmann D. Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:447–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Amtmann D, et al. Upper-extremity and mobility subdomains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) adult physical functioning item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2291–2296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döring A-C, Nota SPFT, Hageman MGJS, et al. Measurement of upper extremity disability using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39:1160–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beerekamp MSH, de Muinck Keizer RJO, Schep NWL, et al. Epidemiology of extremity fractures in the Netherlands. Injury. 2017;48:1355–1362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171–1179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar