Skip to main content

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%
  1. Correct predicted hypotheses are highlighted in bold