COA At-a-Glance
Evidence of cognitive interviewing of draft instrument in target patient population
Evidence of internal consistency
Evidence of test-retest or inter-rater reliability
Evidence of concurrent validity
Evidence of known-groups validity
Evidence of ability to detect change over time
Evidence of responder thresholds
Inclusion of the COA in product labelling
- Overview
- Content Validity
- Reliability
- Validity
- Ability to Detect Change
- Responder Thresholds
- Reference(s) of development / validation
- Other references
- Inclusion of the COA in product labelling
- Existence of Scoring / Interpretation / User Manual
- Original language and translations
- References of translations
- Authors and contact information
- Condition of use: copyright
- Review copy
Overview
Instrument Name: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Bank - Strength Impact
Abbreviation: PROMIS Pediatric Bank - Strength Impact
Points for Consideration:
Low number of publications
Description of Tool:
The PROMIS Pediatric Strength Impact scale is a PRO containing 12 items designed to assess a child's capacity to perform functional activities of daily living that require significant amount of muscle force generation.
Minimum Qualification Required by COA Administrator: No degree requirement
Year: 2014
Objective of Development:
To assess a child's capacity to perform functional activities of daily living that require significant amount of muscle force generation
Population of Development: Age range (therapeutic indication):
8-17 years (All)
Pediatric Population(s) in which COA has been used:
Not reported
COA type:
Number of Items 12 items
Mode of Administration:
Data Collection Mode:
Time for Completion: Not reported
Response Scales: 5-point verbal rating scale ranging from 1 "No days" to 5 "6-7 days"
Summary of Scoring:
Available Scores:
Global Score based on T-score conversion
Weighting:
No
Score Interpretation:
Higher score = Better capacity to perform functional activities of daily living
Content Validity
Evidence of Literature Review: Yes
Evidence of Instrument Review: Yes
Evidence of Clinical or Expert Input: Yes
Evidence of concept elicitation in target patient population: Yes
Evidence of a Saturation Grid: None identified
Evidence for Selection of Data Collection Method: None identified
Recall/Observation Period:
Evidence for Selection of Reponse Options: Yes
Evidence of cognitive interviewing of draft instrument in target patient population: Yes
Evidence of Preliminary Scoring of Items and Domains: Yes
Evidence related to respondent and administrator burden: None identified
Evidence of a Conceptual Framework: None identified
Evidence of an item-tracking matrix: None identified
Evidence related to item selection: Yes
Evidence of re-testing the final version: None identified
Reliability
Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Yes
Evidence of internal consistency:
Test-retest Reliability (ICC):
None identified
Inter-rater/ inter-interviewer reliability (kappa):
Not applicable
Evidence of test-retest or inter-rater reliability: None identified
Validity
Concurrent validity (convergent, divergent):
None identified
Known-group validity:
None identified
Evidence of Translatability Assessment: Yes
Evidence related to missing data: None identified
Evidence for Selection of Recall Period: Yes
Evidence of Administration Instructions and Training Provided: None identified
Evidence of concurrent validity: None identified
Evidence of known-groups validity: None identified
Evidence of ability to detect change over time: None identified
Ability to Detect Change
Ability to detect change (Responsiveness):
None identified
Responder Thresholds
Responder Thresholds:
Healthmeasures Website
- Population/Disease: Referent population (age Not stated)
- Method used: CID - Distribution
- Results: T score (50±10)
Cut-off scores: Excellent (T-Score > 60); Good (40 to 60); Fair (30 to 40) and Poor (T-Score <30)
Evidence of responder thresholds: Yes
Reference(s) of development / validation
[Conference Abstract] Singh A., Dasgupta M., Simpson P., Panepinto J. Validation of new patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) measures in children with sickle cell disease. Qual. Life Res.. 2018;27(Supplement 1):S146-S147 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11136-018-1946-9)
Tucker CA, Bevans KB, Teneralli RE. Self-reported pediatric measures of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and strength impact for PROMIS: conceptual framework. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2014 Winter;26(4):376-84 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176711/)
Tucker, CA, Bevans, KB, Teneralli, RE. Self-reported pediatric measures of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and strength impact for PROMIS: item development. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 26(4), 385-92 (https://journals.lww.com/pedpt/Fulltext/2014/26040/Self_reported_Pediatric_Measures_of_Physical.3.aspx)
Information provided by the authors
Other references
None identified
Inclusion of the COA in product labelling
None identified
Existence of Scoring / Interpretation / User Manual
Original language and translations
Original Language: English for the USA
Translations:
Spanish
German
References of translations
Tucker CA , Bowles HR , Bevans KB , Teneralli RE , Smith AW, Forrest CB
Health Measures
E-mail: help@healthmeasures.net
Condition of use: copyright
Review copy available on the Health Measures website (https://www.healthmeasures.net/search-view-measures?task=Search.search)
Review copy
None identified