Table 4 Responsiveness of the PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-APS
From: Using PROMIS for measuring recovery after abdominal surgery: a pilot study
A. PROMIS-PF | ||
Hypotheses on each time point | Explanation Group or subscale: Effect size Change score (SD) | |
Hypothesis: Intermediate surgical procedures show larger change in physical function scores on each time point than minor surgical procedures. | ||
 T0-T1 | Intermediate: 2.11 19.52 (9.25) | Minor: 1.23 12.26 (10.00) |
 T1-T2 | Intermediate: 1.78 4.85 (2.73) | Minor: 1.27 10.22 (8.07) |
 T2-T3 | Intermediate: 1.81 8.12 (4.48) | Minor: 0.26 2.61 (9.88) |
Hypothesis: The PROMIS-PF is equally or more responsive (at most 0.05 smaller effect size) than the WHO-MO subscale of the WHODAS between the consecutive time points | ||
 T0-T1 | PROMIS-PF: 1.62 15.40 (9.52) | Who-MO: 2.49 43.96 (17.62) |
 T1-T2 | PROMIS-PF: 1.11 7.90 (7.14) | Who-MO: 1.16 33.96 (29.37) |
 T2-T3 | PROMIS-PF: 0.51 5.08 (10.01) | Who-MO: 0.56 12.50 (22.44) |
The PROMIS-PF is equally or more responsive (at most 0.05 smaller effect size) than the SF-PF subscale of the SF-36 between the consecutive time points | ||
 T2-T3 | PROMIS-PF: 0.51 5.08 (10.01) | SF-PF: 0.53 11.21 (21.26) |
Total hypotheses confirmed: 6/7 = 85.7% | ||
B. PROMIS-APS | ||
Hypotheses on each time point | Explanation Group or subscale: Effect size Change score (SD) | |
Hypothesis: Intermediate surgical procedures show larger change in participation scores between the consecutive time points than minor surgical procedures | ||
 T0-T1 | Intermediate: 1.20 11.81 (9.82) | Minor: 0.68 6.97 (10.12) |
 T1-T2 | Intermediate: 0.25 2.56 (10.04) | Minor: 0.42 5.06 (12.04) |
 T2-T3 | Intermediate: 1.16 8.78 (7.54) | Minor: 0.45 5.55 (12.36) |
Hypothesis: The PROMIS-APS is equally or more responsive (at most 0.05 smaller effect size) than the WHO-LA-H of the WHODAS between the consecutive time points | ||
 T0-T1 | PROMIS-APS: 0.90 9.07 (10.06) | Who-LA-H: 2.10 51.67 (24.37) |
 T1-T2 | PROMIS-APS: 0.33 3.98 (11.95) | Who-LA-H: 1.17 34.00 (29.13) |
 T2-T3 | PROMIS-APS: 0.59 7.00 (11.91) | Who- LA-H: 0.32 10.00 (31.58) |
Hypothesis: The PROMIS-APS is equally or more responsive (at most 0.05 smaller effect size) than the WHO-LA-W of the WHODAS between the consecutive time points | ||
 T0-T1 | PROMIS-APS: 0.90 9.07 (10.06) | WHO-LA-W: 1.79 51.42 (28.80) |
 T1-T2 | PROMIS-APS: 0.33 3.98 (11.95) | WHO-LA-W: 0.96 30.24 (31.47) |
 T2-T3 | PROMIS-APS: 0.58 7.00 (11.91) | WHO-LA-W: 0.30 11.08 (36.47) |
Hypothesis: The PROMIS-APS is equally or more responsive (at most 0.05 smaller effect size) than the WHO-PART of the WHODAS between the consecutive time points | ||
 T0-T1 | PROMIS-APS: 0.90 9.07 (10.06) | WHO-PART: 0.74 16.11 (21.70) |
 T1-T2 | PROMIS-APS: 0.33 3.98 (11.95) | WHO-PART: 0.70 13.06 (18.61) |
 T2-T3 | PROMIS-APS: 0.58 7.00 (11.91) | WHO-PART: 0.49 9.78 (20.00) |
The PROMIS-APS is equally or more responsive (at most 0.05 smaller effect size) than the SF-PRF subscale of the SF-36 between the consecutive time points (T2-T3) | ||
 T2-T3 | PROMIS-APS: 0.58 7.00 (11.91) | SF-PRF: 0. 23 9.48 (40.97) |
Total hypotheses confirmed: 7/13 = 53.8% | ||