Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis

S. J. Bartlett, A. K. Gutierrez, A. Butanis, V. P. Bykerk, J. R. Curtis, S. Ginsberg, A. L. Leong, A. Lyddiatt, W. B. Nowell, Ana-Maria Orbai, Katherine Smith, Clifton Bingham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. Methods: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n = 200) and three academic medical centers (n = 84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Mean SF scores were similar (p ≥ .61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5–55.9), but were significantly higher (p < .001) in online participants. SF Fatigue scores correlated highly (r ≥ 0.82; p < .000) and moderately with patient assessments of disease activity (r ≥ 0.62; p = .000). Most (70–92%) reported that the items “completely” or “mostly” reflected their experience. Almost all (≥ 94%) could distinguish general fatigue from RA fatigue. Most (≥ 85%) rated individual items questions as “somewhat” or “very relevant” to their fatigue experience, averaged their fatigue over the past 7 days (58%), and rated fatigue impact versus severity (72 vs. 19%). 99% rated fatigue as an important symptom they considered when deciding how well their current treatment was controlling their RA. Conclusions: Results suggest that items in the single-score PROMIS Fatigue SFs demonstrate content validity and can adequately capture the wide range of fatigue experiences of people with RA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalQuality of Life Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - May 24 2018

Fingerprint

Fatigue
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Interviews

Keywords

  • Content validity
  • Fatigue
  • PROMIS
  • Rheumatoid arthritis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis. / Bartlett, S. J.; Gutierrez, A. K.; Butanis, A.; Bykerk, V. P.; Curtis, J. R.; Ginsberg, S.; Leong, A. L.; Lyddiatt, A.; Nowell, W. B.; Orbai, Ana-Maria; Smith, Katherine; Bingham, Clifton.

In: Quality of Life Research, 24.05.2018, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bartlett, S. J. ; Gutierrez, A. K. ; Butanis, A. ; Bykerk, V. P. ; Curtis, J. R. ; Ginsberg, S. ; Leong, A. L. ; Lyddiatt, A. ; Nowell, W. B. ; Orbai, Ana-Maria ; Smith, Katherine ; Bingham, Clifton. / Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis. In: Quality of Life Research. 2018 ; pp. 1-9.
@article{1ece3f6b24744f4f984161fc6513f62e,
title = "Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis",
abstract = "Purpose: Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. Methods: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n = 200) and three academic medical centers (n = 84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Mean SF scores were similar (p ≥ .61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5–55.9), but were significantly higher (p < .001) in online participants. SF Fatigue scores correlated highly (r ≥ 0.82; p < .000) and moderately with patient assessments of disease activity (r ≥ 0.62; p = .000). Most (70–92{\%}) reported that the items “completely” or “mostly” reflected their experience. Almost all (≥ 94{\%}) could distinguish general fatigue from RA fatigue. Most (≥ 85{\%}) rated individual items questions as “somewhat” or “very relevant” to their fatigue experience, averaged their fatigue over the past 7 days (58{\%}), and rated fatigue impact versus severity (72 vs. 19{\%}). 99{\%} rated fatigue as an important symptom they considered when deciding how well their current treatment was controlling their RA. Conclusions: Results suggest that items in the single-score PROMIS Fatigue SFs demonstrate content validity and can adequately capture the wide range of fatigue experiences of people with RA.",
keywords = "Content validity, Fatigue, PROMIS, Rheumatoid arthritis",
author = "Bartlett, {S. J.} and Gutierrez, {A. K.} and A. Butanis and Bykerk, {V. P.} and Curtis, {J. R.} and S. Ginsberg and Leong, {A. L.} and A. Lyddiatt and Nowell, {W. B.} and Ana-Maria Orbai and Katherine Smith and Clifton Bingham",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-018-1880-x",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis

AU - Bartlett, S. J.

AU - Gutierrez, A. K.

AU - Butanis, A.

AU - Bykerk, V. P.

AU - Curtis, J. R.

AU - Ginsberg, S.

AU - Leong, A. L.

AU - Lyddiatt, A.

AU - Nowell, W. B.

AU - Orbai, Ana-Maria

AU - Smith, Katherine

AU - Bingham, Clifton

PY - 2018/5/24

Y1 - 2018/5/24

N2 - Purpose: Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. Methods: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n = 200) and three academic medical centers (n = 84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Mean SF scores were similar (p ≥ .61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5–55.9), but were significantly higher (p < .001) in online participants. SF Fatigue scores correlated highly (r ≥ 0.82; p < .000) and moderately with patient assessments of disease activity (r ≥ 0.62; p = .000). Most (70–92%) reported that the items “completely” or “mostly” reflected their experience. Almost all (≥ 94%) could distinguish general fatigue from RA fatigue. Most (≥ 85%) rated individual items questions as “somewhat” or “very relevant” to their fatigue experience, averaged their fatigue over the past 7 days (58%), and rated fatigue impact versus severity (72 vs. 19%). 99% rated fatigue as an important symptom they considered when deciding how well their current treatment was controlling their RA. Conclusions: Results suggest that items in the single-score PROMIS Fatigue SFs demonstrate content validity and can adequately capture the wide range of fatigue experiences of people with RA.

AB - Purpose: Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. Methods: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n = 200) and three academic medical centers (n = 84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Mean SF scores were similar (p ≥ .61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5–55.9), but were significantly higher (p < .001) in online participants. SF Fatigue scores correlated highly (r ≥ 0.82; p < .000) and moderately with patient assessments of disease activity (r ≥ 0.62; p = .000). Most (70–92%) reported that the items “completely” or “mostly” reflected their experience. Almost all (≥ 94%) could distinguish general fatigue from RA fatigue. Most (≥ 85%) rated individual items questions as “somewhat” or “very relevant” to their fatigue experience, averaged their fatigue over the past 7 days (58%), and rated fatigue impact versus severity (72 vs. 19%). 99% rated fatigue as an important symptom they considered when deciding how well their current treatment was controlling their RA. Conclusions: Results suggest that items in the single-score PROMIS Fatigue SFs demonstrate content validity and can adequately capture the wide range of fatigue experiences of people with RA.

KW - Content validity

KW - Fatigue

KW - PROMIS

KW - Rheumatoid arthritis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047293174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047293174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-018-1880-x

DO - 10.1007/s11136-018-1880-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 29797175

AN - SCOPUS:85047293174

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

ER -