Development of an item list to assess the forgotten joint concept in shoulder patients

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Karlmeinrad Giesinger¹  Bernhard Jost¹  Bernhard Holzner³  David F Hamilton²  Nicolas Kesterke¹  Johannes M Giesinger⁴ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, St. Gallen, 9000, CH, Switzerland;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK;Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstr. 35, Innsbruck, A-6020, Austria;Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066, CX, The Netherlands

关键词: Outcome measure;    Item bank;    Patient-reported outcome;    Questionnaire;    Forgotten joint score;    Shoulder;   

Others  :  1161062
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0520-7

 received in 2014-10-06, accepted in 2015-03-04,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

To generate an item list for the assessment of joint awareness in shoulder patients and to collect patient feedback on the comprehensibility of the items and the forgotten joint concept.

Methods

Item content was generated on the basis of literature search and expert ratings following a stepwise refinement procedure, including final evaluation by an international expert board (n = 12) including members with various professional backgrounds. Items were translated from English to German and evaluated in 30 German-speaking shoulder patients in Switzerland and 30 shoulder patients in the UK.

Results

Literature search identified 45 questionnaires covering 805 issues potentially relevant for the assessment of joint awareness. Stepwise item selection resulted in 97 items to be evaluated by the international expert board leaving 70 items for collecting patient feedback. The majority of patients indicated that the introductory text explaining the forgotten joint concept was easy or very easy to understand (79.3%) and that the items were clear (91.4%).

Conclusion

We developed a list of 70 questions for the assessment of joint awareness in shoulder patients and obtained positive patient feedback for these. In a next step, we will administer the items to a large international patient sample to obtain data for psychometric analysis and development of a measurement model, which is the basis for creation of computer-adaptive assessments or static short-forms.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Giesinger et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Höftprotesregistret S: Swedish hip arthroplasty register. 2014.
• [2]Pedersen A: Dansk Hoftealloplastik Register. 2014.
• [3]Registry NJ. National Joint Registry. 2014.
• [4]Santemedia. Schweizerisches Implantat-Register. 2014. Available from: http://www.siris-implant.ch.
• [5]Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS: The “Forgotten Joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012, 27(3):430-6.
• [6]Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM: Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014, 22(2):184-9.
• [7]DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA: PROMIS Cooperative Group: Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care 2007, 45(5 Suppl 1):S12-21.
• [8]U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for Industry - patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009.
• [9]Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson NK, Chie WC, Conroy T, Costantini A, et al.: Development of Computerised Adaptive Testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 dimensions - general approach and initial results for physical functioning. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46(8):1352-8.
• [10]Giesinger JM, Petersen M, Groenvold M, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Conroy T, et al.: Cross-cultural development of an item list for computer-adaptive testing of fatigue in oncological patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011, 9(1):19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Gamper EM, Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Young T, Costantini A, Aaronson N, et al.: The EORTC emotional functioning computerized adaptive test: phases I-III of a cross-cultural item bank development. Psychooncology 2014, 23(4):397-403.
• [12]Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Holzner B, Giesinger K: Development of a computer-adaptive version of the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty 2013, 28(3):418-22.
• [13]Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Behrend H, Giesinger K. Association of psychological status and patient-reported physical outcome measures in joint arthroplasty: a lack of divergent validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013:11(64)
• [14]Suk M, Hanson B, Norvell DC: Musculoskeletal outcomes measures and instruments - selection and assessment upper extremity, vol. 1. 2nd ed. Thieme, Stuttgart; 2009.
• [15]Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(24):3186-91.
• [16]Cull A, Sprangers MAG, Bjordal K, Aaronson NK, West K, Bottomley A: EORTC Quality of Life Group Translation Procedure. 3rd edition. EORTC, Brussels; 2002.
• [17]Ge Y, Chen S, Chen J, Hua Y, Li Y: The development and evaluation of a new shoulder scoring system based on the view of patients and physicians: the Fudan University shoulder score. Arthroscopy 2013, 29(4):613-22.
• [18]Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA: 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 Suppl 1):S22-31.
• [19]Mitchell AJ, Smith AB, Al-salihy Z, Rahim TA, Mahmud MQ, Muhyaldin AS: Redefining diagnostic symptoms of depression using Rasch analysis: testing an item bank suitable for DSM-V and computer adaptive testing. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2011, 45(10):846-52.
• [20]Stucky BD, Edelen MO, Sherbourne CD, Eberhart NK, Lara M: Developing an item bank and short forms that assess the impact of asthma on quality of life. Respir Med 2014, 108(2):252-63.
• [21]Goetz C, Ecosse E, Rat AC, Pouchot J, Coste J, Guillemin F: Measurement properties of the osteoarthritis of knee and hip quality of life OAKHQOL questionnaire: an item response theory analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011, 50(3):500-5.
• [22]Pollard B, Dixon D, Dieppe P, Johnston M: Measuring the ICF components of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction: an item analysis using classical test theory and item response theory. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009, 7:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Cook C, Hegedus E, Goode A, Mina C, Pietrobon R, Higgins LD: Relative validity of the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (M-ASES) questionnaire using item response theory. Rheumatol Int 2008, 28(3):217-23.
• [24]Wolfe F, Kong SX: Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Ann Rheum Dis 1999, 58(9):563-8.
• [25]Jette AM, McDonough CM, Ni P, Haley SM, Hambleton RK, Olarsch S, et al.: A functional difficulty and functional pain instrument for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2009, 11(4):107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Jette AM, McDonough CM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Latham N, et al.: A computer-adaptive disability instrument for lower extremity osteoarthritis research demonstrated promising breadth, precision, and reliability. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62(8):807-15.
• [27]Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, Teal CR, Crane PK: Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(3):290-8.
• [28]Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, Saltzman CL: Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res 2011, 29(6):947-53.
• [29]Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE: 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(1):17-33.
• [30]Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, 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(11):1179-94.
• [31]Fries JF, Lingala B, Siemons L, Glas CA, Cella D, Hussain YN, et al.: Extending the floor and the ceiling for assessment of physical function. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014, 66(5):1378-87.
• [32]Oude Voshaar MA, ten Klooster PM, Glas CA, Vonkeman HE, Taal E, Krishnan E, et al.: Calibration of the PROMIS physical function item bank in Dutch patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS One 2014, 9(3):e92367.
• [33]Paz SH, Spritzer KL, Morales LS, Hays RD. Age-related differential item functioning for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS(R)) Physical Functioning Items. Health Care: Prim; 2013. p. 3(131).