Primary Image

RMD

PROMIS Fatigue

Last Updated

Purpose

Domain focused, self-reported and parent-reported measures of global, physical, mental, and social health for adults and children in the general population and those living with a chronic condition.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Area of Assessment

General Health
Sleep

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Cost Description

Free to use, however use on NIH Toolbox requres subscription of $499.99 per year

CDE Status

Availability

The instrument is freely available here: PROMIS website.

See General Page for currently available PROMIS Bank CDE Details.

Classification

Supplemental - Highly Recommended: Stroke, Congenital Muscular Dystrophy (CMD) in studies of psychosocial functioning, quality-of-life, outcome, and long-term adjustment studies.

 Supplemental: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Chiari I Malformation (CM), Epilepsy, Friedreich's Ataxia (FA), Headache, Huntington's Disease (HD), Mitochondrial Disease (Mito), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Myasthenia Gravis (MG), Neuromuscular Diseases (NMD), Duchenne/Becker Muscular Dystrophy (DMD/BMD), Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), Parkinson's Disease (PD), Stroke, and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)

Exploratory: Cerebral Palsy (CP) Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy (DM) and Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD) and Sport-Related Concussion (SRC)

*Headache specific subtest recommendations : Anxiety (Adult/Pediatric), Depression (Adult/Pediatric), Sleep (Adult)

Key Descriptions

  • Scoring: Item-levels are scored numerically for an individual's response to each question. PROMIS recommends the best way to find the total raw score is using the free HealthMeasures Scoring Service (https://www.assessmentcenter.net/ac_scoringservice) or a tool that can automatically calculate scores. Scores can also be added up by hand to find the total raw score. Then the raw score is converted to a T-score using the table in the Appendix of the link below. This standardizes the score with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Being above or below the standard deviation could be desirable or undesirable based on the domain being measured.
  • Higher scores means more of the concept being measured. Example = more fatigue

Number of Items

Item Bank: 95

Short forms: 4, 6, 7 (weekly), 7 (daily) 8, 13

Computer adaptive tests (CAT)
Items dynamically selected for administration from the item bank based on respondent’s previous answer. Usually between 4-12 items or questions.

Equipment Required

  • Paper forms or digital forms (such as NIH Toolbox)

Time to Administer

5-15 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Holly O’Hearn, SPT

Jensyn Bradley SPT, ATC, LAT

Chi-Lun Chiao, SPT

Holt McPherson, SPT

Kenna Peters, SPT

Corinne Woodbine, SPT

Duke University, School of Medicine, Division of Physical Therapy.

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

General Health

Considerations

  • PROMIS measures can be used in the general population and with adult populations with a chronic condition(s)
  • PROMIS measures have a larger range of measurement than most conventional measures, decreasing floor and ceiling effects as a result
  • PROMIS measures have fewer items than conventional measures, thereby decreasing respondent burden. When used as computer adaptive tests, PROMIS measures usually require 4-6 items for precise measurement of health-related constructs
  • Translations: The assessments are available via PDF in Spanish and can be obtained in other languages by contacting translations@Healthmeasures.net

Spinal Injuries

back to Populations

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Anterior Cervical Spine Patients

Purvis et al, 2017; n=148; mean age = 53                    

  •     MCID = -5.8

Arthritis

back to Populations

Normative Data

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Bingham 2019, n=546, age = 57 (14) years old, 81% female, recruited from online patient communities, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

Distribution of PROMIS Fatigue 7a, 8a, and 4a scores

 

N

Mean

SD

Median

25%

75%

Range

Min

Max

PROMIS Fatigue 7a

548

58.0

11.5

58.7

50.1

66.4

53.3

29.4

82.7

PROMIS Fatigue 8a

548

58.6

11.6

60.1

50.5

67.3

44.6

33.1

77.7

PROMIS Fatigue 4a

546

58.0

11.6

58.9

48.6

66.6

42.1

33.7

75.8

 

Mean PROMIS fatigue scores by patient descriptors of symptom severity and indicators of RA disease activity

 

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Descriptors

None

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Fatigue 7a

47

38.8

6.4

135

48.6

6.4

127

59.6

6.1

39

69.7

4.9

Fatigue 8a

47

36.3

5.1

135

49.2

5.3

127

61.1

4.9

39

71.4

4.7

Fatigue 4a

47

36.8

5.0

135

48.4

5.5

125

60.4

5.1

39

71.1

4.6

CDAI

Remission

Low

Moderate

High

Fatigue 7a

80

46.3

8.4

132

52.0

9.6

94

58.4

10.7

34

62.7

8.4

Fatigue 8a

80

46.7

8.8

132

52.5

9.7

94

59.3

11.2

34

64.5

8.4

Fatigue 4a

80

46.3

8.7

131

51.9

9.8

93

58.6

11.0

34

63.9

8.5

Mean values in the same row are significantly different from each other at p <.05

Test/Retest Reliability

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Clifton et al; n=348; mean age = 57                  

  • Excellent ICC: 7a and 8a = 0.93; 7a and 4a = 0.91; 8a and 4a = .98

Construct Validity

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Bingham 2019, n=546, age = 57 (14) years old, 81% female, recruited from online patient communities, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

Correlations among PROMIS fatigue 7a, 8a, 4a, Rand Vitality and 10-point fatigue scores

 

Fatigue 8a

Fatigue 4a

Rand36

Fatigue NRS

7d Fatigue

Fatigue 7a

r

0.94

0.91

0.86

0.85

0.86

N

548

546

388

347

546

Fatigue 8a

r

 

0.98

0.87

0.88

0.93

N

549

388

351

546

 

Fatigue 4a

r

 

0.86

0.88

0.96

 

N

387

348

544

   

Rand-36 Vitality

r

 

0.81

0.82

   

N

344

387

     

Fatigue NRS

(0-10)

r

 

0.87

     

N

345

       

 

 

Correlation of PROMIS fatigue short forms with other PROMIS measures and other clinical disease indicators of RA

PROMIS Fatigue

Physical Function

Participation

Pain Interference

Sleep Disturbance

Anxiety

Depression

TJC28

SJC28

MD

Patient

CDAI

ESR

CRP (mg/L)

7a

r

-0.78

-0.81

0.78

0.65

0.63

0.67

0.34

0.19

0.32

0.59

0.47

0.21*

0.17*

N

546

548

548

546

546

546

345

346

343

547

340

219

254

8a

r

-0.78

-0.78

0.75

0.63

0.60

0.64

0.37

0.21

0.34

0.57

0.50

0.23

0.15**

N

546

548

548

546

546

546

345

346

343

547

340

219

254

4a

r

-0.77

-0.77

0.75

0.65

0.59

0.63

0.37

0.22

0.35

0.56

0.50

0.22

0.15**

N

546

546

546

546

546

546

343

344

341

545

338

219

252

All p < 0.001 except *p <.005 and **p <.02

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Clifton et al; n=348; mean age = 57        

  •  >=15% of people at either end was considered evidence of an effect

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Bingham 2019, n=546, age = 57 (14) years old, 81% female, recruited from online patient communities, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

There was no evidence of floor or ceiling effects using PROMIS SF lookup tables. On the 7a, 1% had scores at the lowest (29.4) and highest (83.2) levels, based on PROMIS SF lookup tables. On the 8a, 6% were at the lowest (33.1) and 7% at the highest (77.7), while on the 4a 7% scores at the lowest (33.7) and 10% at the highest (75.8), well below the threshold of 15% for evidence of floor and ceiling effects.

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Normative Data

Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Bingham 2019, n=546, age = 57 (14) years old, 81% female, recruited from online patient communities, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

Distribution of PROMIS Fatigue 7a, 8a, and 4a scores

 

N

Mean

SD

Median

25%

75%

Range

Min

Max

PROMIS Fatigue 7a

548

58.0

11.5

58.7

50.1

66.4

53.3

29.4

82.7

PROMIS Fatigue 8a

548

58.6

11.6

60.1

50.5

67.3

44.6

33.1

77.7

PROMIS Fatigue 4a

546

58.0

11.6

58.9

48.6

66.6

42.1

33.7

75.8

 

Mean PROMIS fatigue scores by patient descriptors of symptom severity and indicators of RA disease activity

 

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

Descriptors

None

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Fatigue 7a

47

38.8

6.4

135

48.6

6.4

127

59.6

6.1

39

69.7

4.9

Fatigue 8a

47

36.3

5.1

135

49.2

5.3

127

61.1

4.9

39

71.4

4.7

Fatigue 4a

47

36.8

5.0

135

48.4

5.5

125

60.4

5.1

39

71.1

4.6

CDAI

Remission

Low

Moderate

High

Fatigue 7a

80

46.3

8.4

132

52.0

9.6

94

58.4

10.7

34

62.7

8.4

Fatigue 8a

80

46.7

8.8

132

52.5

9.7

94

59.3

11.2

34

64.5

8.4

Fatigue 4a

80

46.3

8.7

131

51.9

9.8

93

58.6

11.0

34

63.9

8.5

Mean values in the same row are significantly different from each other at p <.05

Kidney Transplant Recipients: (Tang, et. al., 2019, n=77, 58% male, age=50.6 (17.0) years, adults who received a kidney transplant >30 pre-enrollment )

Distribution of PROMIS scores by domain (n=169)

 

Mean

SD

Median

25%

75%

Min

Max

 PROMIS-57

49.61

10.94

49.2

41.0

57.5

33.1

77.8

 PROMIS-29

49.22

10.68

48.6

43.1

57.0

33.7

75.8

Test/Retest Reliability

Kidney Transplant Recipients: (Tang, et. al., 2019, n=77, 58% male, age=50.6 (17.0) years, adults who received a kidney transplant >30 pre-enrollment )

  • Excellent test retest reliability: PROMIS-57 (ICC=0.77)
  • Excellent test retest reliability: PROMIS-29 (ICC=0.72)

Internal Consistency

Kidney Transplant Recipients: (Tang, et. al., 2019, n=77, 58% male, age=50.6 (17.0) years, adults who received a kidney transplant >30 pre-enrollment )

  • Excellent internal consistency: PROMIS-57 α=0.97
  • Excellent internal consistency: PROMIS-29 α=0.94

 

Patients with Heart Failure that Undergo Heart Transplant

Flynn et al, 2015; n=48; mean age = 51.8                 

  • Excellent internal consistency (Promis Fatigue 7a Cronbach's Alpha = 0.91) at baseline.
  • Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha=0.77) at follow-up.

Construct Validity

Patients with Heart Failure that Undergo Heart Transplant

Flynn et al, 2015; n=48; mean age = 51.8          

 

          Correlation, ra (95% Confidence Interval)

Measure

Baseline

Follow-up

Change

PROMIS Fatigue CAT

 

 

 

KCCQ Fatigue 05

0.74 (0.53, 0.84)

 

0.59 (0.33, 0.73)

 

0.70 (0.48, 0.81)

 

KCCQ Fatigue 06

0.83 (0.57, 0.90)

 

0.59 (0.38, 0.75)

 

0.69 (0.49, 0.81)

 

SF-36 Vitality

0.74 (0.53, 0.87)

 

0.78 (0.62, 0.87)

 

0.77 (0.61, 0.86)

 

6-Minute Walk Distance

0.59 (0.29, 0.78)

 

0.22 (0.14, 0.61)

 

0.45 (0.14, 0.68)

 

PROMIS Fatigue Short Form-7a

 

 

 

KCCQ Fatigue 05

0.83 (0.69, 0.90)

 

0.55 (0.29, 0.72)

 

0.72 (0.52, 0.82

 

KCCQ Fatigue 06

0.84 (0.70, 0.91)

 

0.55 (0.30, 0.70)

 

0.63 (0.43, 0.76)

 

SF-36 Vitality

0.77 (0.62, 0.87)

 

0.76 (0.61, 0.86)

 

0.76 (0.61, 0.85)

 

 

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: (Kasturi et al 2018, n=204, age= 40.0 ± 13.2, outpatient, CAT)

  • Adequate convergent validity with PROMIS Global Physical Health (-0.65)
  • Adequate convergent validity with PROMIS Global Physical Health (-0.60)

Content Validity

Kidney Transplant Recipients: (Tang, et. al., 2019, n=77, 58% male, age=50.6 (17.0) years, adults who received a kidney transplant >30 pre-enrollment )

Correlation of PROMIS scores with legacy kidney transplant measures

Domain

Principal legacy

PROMIS-57

PROMIS-29

Correlation coefficient

Correlation coefficient

Fatigue

Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale tiredness

0.722 (0.636 to 0.790)

0.725 (0.640 to 0.792)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Kidney Transplant Recipients: (Tang, et. al., 2019, n=77, 58% male, age=50.6 (17.0) years, adults who received a kidney transplant >30 pre-enrollment )

Ceiling and floor effects of PROMIS and legacy measures

 

PROMIS-57

 

PROMIS-29

Floor (%)

Ceiling (%)

Floor (%)

Ceiling (%)

Fatigue

15

1

18

2

Cancer

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Cancer

Leung et al; n=336; mean age = 57.44                  

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for the PROMIS Fatigue Scale (ICC = 0.94)

Osteoarthritis

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Osteoarthritis
Broderick et al, 2013; n=98; mean age = 56.9  

  • Excellent ICC = 0.85

Musculoskeletal Conditions

back to Populations

Normative Data

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Deyo 2016, n=198, age = 66.5 (8.2) years old, 62.1% female, recruited from primary care physicians’ offices, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

  • Baseline t-score: 53.8(8.8)
  • 3 month follow-up t-score: 53.9 (9.2)

Test/Retest Reliability

Adults chronic MSK pain not receiving opiates
Deyo et al, 2016; n=198; mean age = 66.56

  • Adequate ICC * 95% CI = 0.68 (n=91) for patient’s pain being “about the same” at 3 months following baseline assessment.-
  • Adequate ICC= 0.76 (n=98), for patient’s whose pain intensity was within 1 point of baseline values 3 months following baseline assessment.

Internal Consistency

Adults chronic MSK pain not receiving opiates
Deyo et al, 2016; n=198; mean age = 66.56                  

  • Excellent internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha = 0.94)

Construct Validity

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Deyo 2016, n=198, age = 66.5 (8.2) years old, 62.1% female, recruited from primary care physicians’ offices, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

 

Evidence of construct validity of baseline PROMIS measures and the derived impact score

 

Worker’s compensation

 

Catastrophizing score (total)

 

Falls in previous 3 months

PROMIS measure

Yes

No

<14

≥14

Yes

No

29.0

169.0 

109.0

78.0 

57.0 

139.0 

Fatigue 

59.2 (8.7)

52.8 (8.5)

51.3 (8.3)

57.4 (9.3)

56.9 (8.7)

52.6 (8.6)

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Adults chronic MSK pain not receiving opiates
Deyo et al, 2016; n=198; mean age = 66.5

  • Adequate floor/ceiling effects (4.4% of participants responses with lowest possible score at baseline and 3 months, 2.3% of responses with highest possible score at baseline and 3 months).

Evidence of floor and ceiling effects (or lack thereof) in PROMIS measures and the derived impact score

 

Percent of responses


PROMIS measure

Lowest possible score

Highest possible score

Fatigue 

4.4 

2.3 

Percent of responses at baseline and 3 months with the lowest and highest possible scores. Bolded values are those exceeding 10%.

Responsiveness

Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: (Deyo 2016, n=198, age = 66.5 (8.2) years old, 62.1% female, recruited from primary care physicians’ offices, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT))

Effect Size: Change in pain at 3 months compared to baseline

 

Much less (n = 20)

A little less (n = 23)

About the same (n = 91)

A little worse (n = 47)

Much worse (n = 16)

Fatigue 

−0.37 

0.20 

0.05 

−0.05 

0.14 

Bibliography

Broderick, J. E., Schneider, S., Junghaenel, D. U., Schwartz, J. E., Stone, A. A. (2013). Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 65, 1625–1633.

Bingham, C O., Gutierrez, A.K., Butanis, A., Bykerk, V.P., Curtis, J.R., Leong, A., Lyddiatt, A., Nowell, W. B., Orbai, A. M., Bartlett, S.J.(2019).  PROMIS Fatigue short forms are reliable and valid in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 3(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0105-6

Deyo, R.A., Ramsey, K., Buckley, D.I., Michaels, L., Kobus, A., Eckstrom, E., Forro, V., Morris, C. (2016). Performance of a Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form in Older Adults with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 17(2), 314–324. doi:10.1093/pm/pnv046

Flynn, K.E., Dew, M.A., Lin, L., Fawzy, M., Graham, F.L., Hahn, E.A., Hays R.D., Kormos, R.L., Liu, H., McNulty, M., Weinfurt, K.P. (2015). Reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® measures for patients with heart failure who undergo heart transplant. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 24(11), 2591–2599. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1010-y

Kasturi, S., Szymonifka, J., Burket, J. C., Berman, J. R., Kirou, K. A., Levine, A. B., Sammaritano, L.R., Mandl, L.A. (2018). Feasibility, Validity, and Reliability of the 10-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health Short Form in Outpatients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. The Journal of Rheumatology, 45(3), 397 404. doi:10.3899/jrheum.170590

Leung, Y. W., Brown, C. , Cosio, A. P., Dobriyal, A. , Malik, N. , Pat, V. , Irwin, M. , Tomasini, P. , Liu, G. and Howell, D. (2016). Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks for routine surveillance of sleep and fatigue problems in ambulatory cancer care. Cancer, 122: 2906-2917. doi:10.1002/cncr.30134

Purvis, T. E., Andreou, E., Neuman, B. J., Riley, L. H. III, & Skolasky, R. L. (2017). Concurrent validity and responsiveness of PROMIS health domains among patients presenting for anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine, 42(23), E1357–E1365.

Tang, E., Ekundayo, O., Peipert, J. D., Edwards, N., Bansal, A., Richardson, C., Bartlett, S.J., Howell, D., Li, M., Cella, D., Novak, M., Mucsi, I. (2019). Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-57 and -29 item short forms among kidney transplant recipients. Quality of Life Research, 28(3), 815-827. doi:10.1007/s11136018-2058-2

Save now, read later.