The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative aims to provide reliable and precise item banks measuring patient-reported outcomes in different health domains. The aim of the present work was to provide a German translation of the PROMIS item banks for satisfaction with participation and to psychometrically test these German versions. Cognitive interviews followed a forward–backward translation. Distribution characteristics, unidimensionality, Rasch model fit, reliability, construct validity, and internal responsiveness were tested in 262 patients with chronic low back pain undergoing rehabilitation. Results for the final 13- and 10-item German static scales (Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles–German version [PSR-G] and Satisfaction for Participation in Discretionary Social Activities–German version [PSA-G]) regarding unidimensionality were satisfactory. The scales are reliable and show good Rasch model fit and distribution characteristics. Both scales are sensitive to small to moderate clinical changes, and we observed initial proof of construct validity. These German versions of the Satisfaction with Participation scales can be recommended to assess participation in a clinical context. The scales’ applicability in other contexts should be examined.
AderD. N. (2007). Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S1–S2.
2.
AMOS Development Corporation. (2011). AMOS 20.0. Meadville, PA: Author.
3.
BodeR. K.HahnE. A.DeVellisR.CellaD. (2010). Measuring participation: The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system experience. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91, S60–S65. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.035
4.
BondT. G.FoxC. M. (2004). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (1st ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BullingerM.KirchbergerI.WareJ. (1995). Der deutsche SF-36 health survey. Übersetzung und psychometrische Testung eines krankheitsübergreifenden Instruments zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität [The German SF-36 Health Survey. Translation and psychometric testing of a generic instrument for the asessment of quality of life]. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of Public Health, 3, 21–36. doi:10.1007/BF02959944
6.
CellaD.GershonR.LaiJ.-S.ChoiS. (2007). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16, 133–141. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9204-6
7.
CellaD.RileyW.StoneA.RothrockN.ReeveB.YountS.…HaysJ.on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. (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, 1179–1194. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011
8.
CellaD.YountS.RothrockN.GershonR.CookK.ReeveB.…RoseM.on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45, S3–S11. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
CollinsD. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12, 229–238. doi:10.1023/A:1023254226592
11.
ConradK. J.SmithE. V.Jr (2004). International conference on objective measurement: Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Medical Care, 42, I1–I6.
12.
CosterW. J.HaleyS. M.AndresP. L.LudlowL. H.BondT. L. Y.NiP. (2004). Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement: personal care and instrumental activities domain. Medical Care, 42, I62–I72.
13.
DeWaltD. A.RothrockN.YountS.StoneA. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45, S12–S21. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2
14.
DijkersM. P. J. M.WhiteneckG.El-JaroudiR. (2000). Measures of social outcomes in disability research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, S63–S80. doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.20627
15.
DillmannU.NilgesP.SaileH.GerbershagenH. U. (1994). Behinderungseinschätzung bei chronischen Schmerzpatienten [Assessing disability in chronic pain patients]. Der Schmerz, 8, 100–110. doi:10.1007/BF02530415
EremencoS. L.CellaD.ArnoldB. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28, 212–232. doi:10.1177/0163278705275342
18.
FarinE.NaglM.GrammL.HeyduckK.GlattackerM. (under review) The PROMIS® pain interference item bank (German version): Psychometric properties and development of static subforms. Quality of Life Research
19.
HahnE.DevellisR.BodeR.GarciaS.CastelL.EisenS.…CellaD.on PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2010). Measuring social health in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Item bank development and testing. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1035–1044. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9654-0
20.
HaleyS. M.SiebensH.Black-SchafferR. M.TaoW.CosterW. J.NiP.JetteA. M. (2008). Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: II. Participation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 275–283. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.150
21.
HermannC.BussU.SnaithR. P. (1995). HADS-D—Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—Deutsche Version: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Angst und Depressivität in der somatischen Medizin [HADS-D—Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—German Version: A questionnaire for the assessment of anxiety and depression in somatic medicine]. Bern, Germany: Huber.
22.
HittnerJ. B. (2007). Factorial invariance of the 13-item sense of coherence scale across gender. Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 273–280. doi:10.1177/1359105307074256
23.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
24.
HustedJ. A.CookR. J.FarewellV. T.GladmanD. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.
25.
JetteA. M.HaleyS. M. (2005). Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 339–345. doi:10.1080/16501970500302793
26.
JetteA. M.KeysorJ.CosterW.NiP.HaleyS. (2005). Beyond function: Predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 2087–2094. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.001
27.
LinacreJ. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85–106.
MagasiS.PostM. W. (2010). A comparative review of contemporary participation measures’ psychometric properties and content coverage. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91, S17–S28. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.011
30.
NormanG. R.WyrwichK. W.PatrickD. L. (2007). The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Quality of Life Research, 16, 815–822. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x
31.
Oude VoshaarM.Ten KloosterP.TaalE.KrishnanE.Van de LaarM. (2012). Dutch translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PROMIS physical function item bank and cognitive pre-test in Dutch arthritis patients. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 14, 1–7. doi:10.1186/ar3760
32.
PrietoL.AlonsoJ.LamarcaR. (2003). Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 27. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-27
33.
ReeveB. B.HaysR. D.BjornerJ. B.CookK. F.CraneP. K.TeresiJ. A.…CellaD.on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. (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, S22–S31. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04
34.
RoseM.BjornerJ. B.BeckerJ.FriesJ. F.WareJ. 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, 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025
35.
SalterK. L.FoleyN. C.JutaiJ. W.TeasellR. W. (2007). Assessment of participation outcomes in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation interventions. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 30, 339–342. doi:10.1097/MRR.0b013e3282f144b7
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. doi:10.1007/BF02291170
38.
Van der ZeeC. H.KapA.MishreR. R.SchoutenE. J.PostM. W. (2011). Responsiveness of four participation measures to changes during and after outpatient rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 1003–1009. doi:10.2340/16501977-0879
39.
WareJ. E.JrSherbourneC. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.
40.
ZigmondA. S.SnaithR. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–370. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
