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

• Published in: Quality of life research Vol. 29; no. 4; pp. 1123 - 1135
• Main Authors: Haan, Erik-Jan A., Terwee, Caroline B., Van Wier, Marieke F., Willigenburg, Nienke W., Van Deurzen, Derek F. P., Pisters, Martijn F., Kaat, Aaron J., Roorda, Leo D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.04.2020; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living - psychology; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Ethnic Groups; Female; Humans; Language; Logistic Models; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Musculoskeletal Diseases - psychology; Netherlands; Osteoarthritis - psychology; Psychometrics - methods; Public Health; Quality of Life - psychology; Quality of Life Research; Questionnaires; Sociology; Surveys and Questionnaires; Translations; Upper Extremity - physiopathology; Validation studies; Validity; Young Adult; Netherlands; Construct validity; Cross-cultural validity; Upper extremity; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS); Floor and ceiling effects
• ISSN: 0962-9343; 1573-2649
• DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02388-2

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 R 2 -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.