Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan;34(1):43-51.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03827-5. Epub 2024 Nov 7.

Agreement of PROMIS Preference (PROPr) scores generated from the PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS-16

Janel Hanmer  1 , Chengbo Zeng  2 , Amy M Cizik  3 , Jason H Raad  1 , Joel Tsevat  4 , Anthony Rodriguez  5 , Ron D Hays  6 , Maria Orlando Edelen  7   8
Affiliations

Agreement of PROMIS Preference (PROPr) scores generated from the PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS-16

Janel Hanmer et al. Qual Life Res. 2025 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: Preference-based summary scores are used to quantify values, differences, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that can be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) measure is a preference-based summary score comprised of 7 PROMIS domains. The PROMIS-16 is a new PROMIS profile instrument. We evaluated the measurement properties of PROPr generated from the widely used PROMIS-29 + 2 compared with the PROMIS-16.

Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from an online survey of the general US population, with a longitudinal subsample who reported back pain. The survey included both the PROMIS-16 and the PROMIS-29 + 2 profiles. PROPr scores were calculated from each profile and compared by the distribution of scores, overall mean scores, product-moment correlations with pain measure scores (Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Pain Intensity, Interference with Enjoyment of Life, Interference with General Activity Scale, and Graded Chronic Pain Scale), and difference in mean scores in subgroups with 13 chronic health conditions (Cohen's d).

Results: Of the 4,115 participants in the baseline survey, 1,533 with any reported back pain were invited for the 6-month follow-up survey and 1,256 completed it. At baseline, the overall mean (SD) PROPr score was 0.532 (0.240) from PROMIS-16 and 0.535 (0.250) from PROMIS 29 + 2. At both time points, the correlations of PROPr scores with physical and mental health summary scores from the PROMIS-29 and 4 pain scales were within 0.01 between profiles. Using subgroups with chronic health conditions and comparing between profiles, Cohen's d estimates of the difference in effect size were small (< 0.2).

Conclusion: PROPr scores from the 16-item PROMIS profile measure are similar to PROPr scores from the longer PROMIS-29 + 2.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis; HRQOL; Health utility; Health-related quality of life; Preference-based measure; Validation study.

Plain language summary

The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) has widely used off-the-shelf profile instruments for adults that yield 8 health-related quality of life domain-specific scores (physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function - abilities, and fatigue). The shortest profile had been 29 questions. Recently, a 16-item profile (PROMIS-16) was developed to be minimally burdensome and clinically useful. In this report, we test whether an overall summary score of health-related quality of life (named PROPr) scored from the PROMIS-16 has good agreement with scores from the PROMIS-29. We find that the PROPr scores from each profile are essentially the same. These findings support the use of the shorter PROMIS-16 when desired.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the research team’s institutional review board (RAND Human Subjects Research Committee FWA00003425; IRB00000051). Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Competing interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of PROPr16 and PROPr29 + 2 scores at Baseline
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Health condition impact estimates from regression analyses of PROPr scores at baseline. Note Age and gender were adjusted as covariates. Error bars were the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the point estimates
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland-Altman plot for the PROPr16and PROPr29 + 2scores at baseline. Note Solid line indicates the mean difference between PROPr16 and PROPr29 + 2; Dash lines indicate the 95% upper and lower limits of agreement
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., Cook, K., DeVellis, R., DeWalt, D., Fries, J. F., Gershon, R., Hahn, E. A., Lai, J. S., Pilkonis, P., Revicki, D., & Hays, R. (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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011 - PMC - PubMed
    1. PROMIS (2023). List of adult measures. Health measures. Retrieved March 19, 2024, from https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-...
    1. Embretson, S., & Yang, X. (2006). Item response theory. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 385–409). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    1. 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(S1), 133–141. 10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6 - PubMed
    1. Cella, D., Choi, S. W., Condon, D. M., Schalet, B., Hays, R. D., Rothrock, N. E., Yount, S., Cook, K. F., Gershon, R. C., Amtmann, D., DeWalt, D. A., Pilkonis, P. A., Stone, A. A., Weinfurt, K., & Reeve, B. B. (2019). PROMIS® Adult Health profiles: Efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value in Health, 22(5), 537–544. 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.004 - PMC - PubMed