Assessing sleep and pain among adults with ME/CFS: psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS®, 2022, Yang et al

Assessing sleep and pain among adults with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS® sleep and pain short forms

Abstract
Purpose

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system® (PROMIS) short forms for assessing sleep disturbance, sleep-related impairment, pain interference, and pain behavior, among adults with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Methods
Data came from the Multi-Site ME/CFS study conducted between 2012 and 2020 at seven ME/CFS specialty clinics across the USA. Baseline and follow-up data from ME/CFS and healthy control (HC) groups were used to examine ceiling/floor effects, internal consistency reliability, differential item functioning (DIF), known-groups validity, and responsiveness.

Results
A total of 945 participants completed the baseline assessment (602 ME/CFS and 338 HC) and 441 ME/CFS also completed the follow-up. The baseline mean T-scores of PROMIS sleep and pain measures ranged from 57.68 to 62.40, about one standard deviation above the national norm (T-score = 50). All four measures showed high internal consistency (ω = 0.92 to 0.97) and no substantial floor/ceiling effects. No DIF was detected by age or sex. Known-groups comparisons among ME/CFS groups with low, medium, and high functional impairment showed significant small-sized differences in scores (η2 = 0.01 to 0.05) for the two sleep measures and small-to-medium-sized differences (η2 = 0.01 to 0.15) for the two pain measures. ME/CFS participants had significantly worse scores than HC (η2 = 0.35 to 0.45) for all four measures. Given the non-interventional nature of the study, responsiveness was evaluated as sensitivity to change over time and the pain interference measure showed an acceptable sensitivity.

Conclusion
The PROMIS sleep and pain measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties supporting their use in ME/CFS research and clinical practice.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-022-03199-8

paywalled

 

Has a PROM ever reported that it's not useful? Seems like they're always "useful". Useful at what is always TBD, but it always is, almost like it's a general issue in psychology, where somehow, just somehow, everything always confirms what's expected, even when it doesn't.

Because clinical psychology seems to be in the habit of always developing things, even when the thing they're working on has been used for decades, and never actually deliver anything at all. It's always promising, like a broken clock set on the "right" answer.

Does it even make sense that a patient-reported rating could be developed without even involving patients? I never saw one that was actually relevant and representative of reality. They're always so lacking and superficial.