Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physical Therapy Sciences, Program in Clinical Health Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Erik-Jan A. Haan & Martijn F. Pisters

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Erik-Jan A. Haan & Caroline B. Terwee

  3. Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Erik-Jan A. Haan & Leo D. Roorda

  4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marieke F. Van Wier, Nienke W. Willigenburg & Derek F. P. Van Deurzen

  5. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Aaron J. Kaat

Authors
  1. Erik-Jan A. Haan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline B. Terwee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marieke F. Van Wier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nienke W. Willigenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Derek F. P. Van Deurzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martijn F. Pisters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aaron J. Kaat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Leo D. Roorda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leo D. Roorda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article. Dr. D.F.P. van Deurzen reports research funding by Wright Medical, not related to this work. Dr. C.B. Terwee reports to be president of the (non-profit) PROMIS Health Organization. Each author signed a conflict of interest disclosure form.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haan, EJ.A., Terwee, C.B., Van Wier, M.F. et al. Translation, cross-cultural and construct validity of the Dutch–Flemish PROMIS® upper extremity item bank v2.0. Qual Life Res 29, 1123–1135 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02388-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02388-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation