Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-01-2020

Translation, cross-cultural and construct validity of the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS® upper extremity item bank v2.0

Auteurs: Erik-Jan A. Haan, Caroline B. Terwee, Marieke F. Van Wier, Nienke W. Willigenburg, Derek F. P. Van Deurzen, Martijn F. Pisters, Aaron J. Kaat, Leo D. Roorda

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a Dutch–Flemish translation of the PROMIS® upper extremity (PROMIS-UE) item bank v2.0, and to investigate its cross-cultural and construct validity as well as its floor and ceiling effects in patients with musculoskeletal UE disorders.

Methods

State of the art translation methodology was used to develop the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS-UE item bank v2.0. The item bank and four legacy instruments were administered to 205 Dutch patients with musculoskeletal UE disorders visiting an orthopedic outpatient clinic. The validity of cross-cultural comparisons between English and Dutch patients was evaluated by studying differential item functioning (DIF) for language (Dutch vs. English) with ordinal logistic regression models and McFadden’s pseudo R²-change of ≥ 2% as critical value. Construct validity was assessed by formulating a priori hypotheses and calculating correlations with legacy instruments. Floor/ceiling effects were evaluated by determining the proportion of patients who achieved the lowest/highest possible raw score.

Results

Eight items showed DIF for language, but their impact on the test score was negligible. The item bank correlated, as hypothesized, moderately with the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS pain intensity item (Pearson’s r = − 0.43) and strongly with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, Subscale Disability/Symptoms (Spearman’s ρ = − 0.87), the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (ρ = − 0.86), and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, Subscale Activities of Daily Living (ρ = 0.87). No patients achieved the lowest or highest possible raw score.

Conclusions

A Dutch–Flemish PROMIS-UE item bank v2.0 has been developed that showed sufficient cross-cultural and construct validity as well as absence of floor and ceiling effects.

vorige artikel Adaptation and validation of the self-report version of the scale for measuring quality of life in people with acquired brain injury (CAVIDACE)

Huisstede, B. M., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Koes, B. W., & Verhaar, J. A. (2006). Incidence and prevalence of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic appraisal of the literature. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-7-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Smith, E., Hoy, D. G., Cross, M., Vos, T., Naghavi, M., Buchbinder, R., et al. (2014). The global burden of other musculoskeletal disorders: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,73(8), 1462–1469. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204680.CrossRefPubMed

Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). American Journal of Industrial Medicine,29(6), 602–608.CrossRefPubMed

Bot, S. D., Terwee, C. B., van der Windt, D. A., Bouter, L. M., Dekker, J., & de Vet, H. C. (2004). Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: A systematic review of the literature. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,63(4), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2003.007724.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Roy, J. S., MacDermid, J. C., & Woodhouse, L. J. (2009). Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis and Rheumatism,61(5), 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24396.CrossRefPubMed

Hoang-Kim, A., Pegreffi, F., Moroni, A., & Ladd, A. (2011). Measuring wrist and hand function: Common scales and checklists. Injury,42(3), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.050.CrossRefPubMed

Forget, N. J., & Higgins, J. (2014). Comparison of generic patient-reported outcome measures used with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: Linking process using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine,46(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1784.CrossRefPubMed

Huang, H., Grant, J. A., Miller, B. S., Mirza, F. M., & Gagnier, J. J. (2015). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. American Journal of Sports Medicine,43(10), 2572–2582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514565096.CrossRefPubMed

Thoomes-de Graaf, M., Scholten-Peeters, G. G., Schellingerhout, J. M., Bourne, A. M., Buchbinder, R., Koehorst, M., et al. (2016). Evaluation of measurement properties of self-administered PROMs aimed at patients with non-specific shoulder pain and “activity limitations”: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research,25(9), 2141–2160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1277-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality and Safety,23(6), 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Ryden, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health,14(8), 1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research,22(8), 1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care,45(5 Suppl 1), S3–s11. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E. A., et al. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: Further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research,19(9), 1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9694-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care,45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cella, D., Gershon, R., Lai, J. S., & Choi, S. (2007). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research,16(Suppl 1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2014). The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,67(5), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,61(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., Amtmann, D., Lai, J. S., Dewitt, E. M., Rothrock, N., et al. (2013). Upper-extremity and mobility subdomains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) adult physical functioning item bank. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,94(11), 2291–2296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.014.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hung, M., Voss, M. W., Bounsanga, J., Crum, A. B., & Tyser, A. R. (2016). Examination of the PROMIS upper extremity item bank. Journal of Hand Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2016.10.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Beckmann, J. T., Hung, M., Voss, M. W., Crum, A. B., Bounsanga, J., & Tyser, A. R. (2016). Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system upper extremity computer adaptive test. Journal of Hand Surgery American,41(7), 739–744.e734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.04.025.CrossRef

23.

Anthony, C. A., Glass, N. A., Hancock, K., Bollier, M., Wolf, B. R., & Hettrich, C. M. (2017). Performance of PROMIS instruments in patients with shoulder instability. American Journal of Sports Medicine,45(2), 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516668304.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kaat, A. J., Rothrock, N. E., Vrahas, M. S., O’Toole, R. V., Buono, S. K., Zerhusen, T., Jr., et al. (2017). Longitudinal validation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in upper extremity trauma. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma,31(10), e321–e326. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000924.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Beleckas, C. M., Padovano, A., Guattery, J., Chamberlain, A. M., Keener, J. D., & Calfee, R. P. (2017). Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) versus physical function (PF) computer adaptive tests (CATs) in upper extremity clinics. Journal of Hand Surgery,42(11), 867–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.06.012.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kaat, A. J., Buckenmaier, C. C., Cook, K. F., Rothrock, N. W., Schalet, B. D., Gershon, R. C., et al. (2019). The expansion and validation of a new upper extremity item bank for the Patient Reported Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0158-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., de Vet, H. C., Dekker, J., Westhovens, R., van Leeuwen, J., et al. (2014). Dutch–Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research,23(6), 1733–1741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0611-6.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation and the Health Professions,28(2), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275342.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Bonomi, A. E., Cella, D. F., Hahn, E. A., Bjordal, K., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Gangeri, L., et al. (1996). Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Quality of Life Research,5(3), 309–320.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gershon, R., & Kaat, A. (2019). PROMIS physical function upper extremity v2.0 extension (V1 ed.). Harvard Dataverse.

31.

PROMIS. (2019). PROMIS physical function scoring manual. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/manuals/PROMIS_Physical_Function_Scoring_Manual.pdf.

32.

Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research,18(7), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Sendlbeck, M., Araujo, E. G., Schett, G., & Englbrecht, M. (2015). Psychometric properties of three single-item pain scales in patients with rheumatoid arthritis seen during routine clinical care: A comparative perspective on construct validity, reproducibility and internal responsiveness. RMD Open,1(1), e000140. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000140.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Changulani, M., Okonkwo, U., Keswani, T., & Kalairajah, Y. (2008). Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: Which one to choose? International Orthopaedics,32(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0368-z.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Schoneveld, K., Wittink, H., & Takken, T. (2009). Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation. Journal of Hand Therapy,22(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2008.11.005.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Veehof, M. M., Sleegers, E. J., van Veldhoven, N. H., Schuurman, A. H., & van Meeteren, N. L. (2002). Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). Journal of Hand Therapy,15(4), 347–354.CrossRefPubMed

37.

De Smet, L., De Kesel, R., Degreef, I., & Debeer, P. (2007). Responsiveness of the Dutch version of the DASH as an outcome measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery,32(1), 74–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2006.10.001.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Klokker, L., Terwee, C. B., Waehrens, E. E., Henriksen, M., Nolte, S., Liegl, G., et al. (2016). Hand-related physical function in rheumatic hand conditions: A protocol for developing a patient-reported outcome measurement instrument. British Medical Journal Open,6(12), e011174. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011174.CrossRef

39.

Dreiser, R. L., Maheu, E., Guillou, G. B., Caspard, H., & Grouin, J. M. (1995). Validation of an algofunctional index for osteoarthritis of the hand. Revue du Rhumatisme. English Edition,62(6 Suppl 1), 43S–53S.

40.

Dreiser, R. L., Maheu, E., & Guillou, G. B. (2000). Sensitivity to change of the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage,8(Suppl A), S25–S28.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Wittoek, R., Cruyssen, B. V., Maheu, E., & Verbruggen, G. (2009). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Dutch version of the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and a study on its construct validity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage,17(5), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2008.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Chung, K. C., Pillsbury, M. S., Walters, M. R., & Hayward, R. A. (1998). Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. Journal of Hand Surgery,23(4), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Chung, K. C., Hamill, J. B., Walters, M. R., & Hayward, R. A. (1999). The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): Assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Annals of Plastic Surgery,42(6), 619–622.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Dias, J. J., Rajan, R. A., & Thompson, J. R. (2008). Which questionnaire is best? The reliability, validity and ease of use of the Patient Evaluation Measure, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and the Michigan Hand Outcome Measure. Journal of Hand Surgery,33(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193407087121.CrossRefPubMed

45.

McMillan, C. R., & Binhammer, P. A. (2009). Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery. Hand (N Y),4(3), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-009-9167-x.CrossRef

46.

Shauver, M. J., & Chung, K. C. (2009). The minimal clinically important difference of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. Journal of Hand Surgery,34(3), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

47.

van de Ven-Stevens, L. A., Munneke, M., Terwee, C. B., Spauwen, P. H., & van der Linde, H. (2009). Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with hand injury: A systematic review of the literature. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,90(1), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.024.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Chung, B. T., & Morris, S. F. (2014). Reliability and internal validity of the Michigan hand questionnaire. Annals of Plastic Surgery,73(4), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827fb3db.CrossRefPubMed

49.

London, D. A., Stepan, J. G., & Calfee, R. P. (2014). Determining the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,133(3), 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000034.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Chung, B. T., & Morris, S. F. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Annals of Plastic Surgery,74(2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182956659.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Maia, M. V., de Moraes, V. Y., Dos Santos, J. B., Faloppa, F., & Belloti, J. C. (2016). Minimal important difference after hand surgery: A prospective assessment for DASH, MHQ, and SF-12. SICOT Journal,2, 32. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2016027.CrossRef

52.

van der Giesen, F. J., Nelissen, R. G., Arendzen, J. H., de Jong, Z., Wolterbeek, R., & Vliet Vlieland, T. P. (2008). Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire-Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,89(6), 1121–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.033.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques. DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care,44(11 Suppl 3), S115–S123. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245183.28384.ed.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Choi, S., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2018). Logistic ordinal regression differential item functioning using IRT, version 0.3-3. Retrieved May 30, 2018, from https://cran.r-project.org.

55.

Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: an R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo Simulations. Journal of Statistical Software,39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research,27(5), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research,27(5), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

59.

PROMIS. (2013). PROMIS instrument development and validation scientific standards, version 2.0 (revised May 2013). Retrieved May 27, 2019, from http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf.

60.

PROMIS. (2014). Minimum requirements for the release of PROMIS instruments after translation and recommandations for futher psychometric evaluation. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/Standards_for_release_of_PROMIS_instruments_after_translation_v8.pdf.

61.

Crins, M. H. P., Terwee, C. B., Klausch, T., Smits, N., de Vet, H. C. W., Westhovens, R., et al. (2017). The Dutch–Flemish PROMIS physical function item bank exhibited strong psychometric properties in patients with chronic pain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,87, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.011.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Oude Voshaar, M. A., ten Klooster, P. M., Glas, C. A., Vonkeman, H. E., Taal, E., Krishnan, E., et al. (2014). Calibration of the PROMIS physical function item bank in Dutch patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS ONE,9(3), e92367. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Crins, M. H. P., van der Wees, P. J., Klausch, T., van Dulmen, S. A., Roorda, L. D., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). Psychometric properties of the PROMIS Physical Function item bank in patients receiving physical therapy. PLoS ONE,13(2), e0192187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Crins, M. H. P., Terwee, C. B., Ogreden, O., Schuller, W., Dekker, P., Flens, G., et al. (2019). Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2087-x.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Minoughan, C. E., Schumaier, A. P., Fritch, J. L., & Grawe, B. M. (2018). Correlation of PROMIS Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test with American shoulder and elbow surgeons shoulder assessment form and simple shoulder test in patients with shoulder arthritis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery,27(4), 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.036.CrossRefPubMed

66.

van Bruggen, S. G. J., Lameijer, C. M., & Terwee, C. B. (2019). Structural validity and construct validity of the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS((R)) physical function-upper extremity version 2.0 item bank in Dutch patients with upper extremity injuries. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1651908.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Translation, cross-cultural and construct validity of the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS® upper extremity item bank v2.0
Auteurs: Erik-Jan A. Haan
Caroline B. Terwee
Marieke F. Van Wier
Nienke W. Willigenburg
Derek F. P. Van Deurzen
Martijn F. Pisters
Aaron J. Kaat
Leo D. Roorda
Publicatiedatum: 01-01-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02388-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

SF-36 predicts 13-year CHD incidence in a middle-aged Swedish general population

Open Access
Brief Communication

Time to deterioration in cancer randomized clinical trials for patient-reported outcomes data: a systematic review

Review

Deriving an overall appearance domain score by applying bifactor IRT analysis to the BODY-Q appearance scales

Open Access

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Translation, cross-cultural and construct validity of the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS® upper extremity item bank v2.0

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

SF-36 predicts 13-year CHD incidence in a middle-aged Swedish general population

Time to deterioration in cancer randomized clinical trials for patient-reported outcomes data: a systematic review

Deriving an overall appearance domain score by applying bifactor IRT analysis to the BODY-Q appearance scales

Joint association of bullying and cyberbullying in health-related quality of life in a sample of adolescents

Evaluation of health-related quality of life in adults with and without dyslipidaemia in rural areas of central China

Subjective wellbeing in the Indian general population: a validation study of the Personal Wellbeing Index

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

SF-36 predicts 13-year CHD incidence in a middle-aged Swedish general population

Time to deterioration in cancer randomized clinical trials for patient-reported outcomes data: a systematic review

Deriving an overall appearance domain score by applying bifactor IRT analysis to the BODY-Q appearance scales

Joint association of bullying and cyberbullying in health-related quality of life in a sample of adolescents

Evaluation of health-related quality of life in adults with and without dyslipidaemia in rural areas of central China

Subjective wellbeing in the Indian general population: a validation study of the Personal Wellbeing Index