Patient versus proxy response on global health scales: no meaningful DIFference
Assessment of outcomes from a proxy is often substituted for the patient’s self-report when the patient is unable or unwilling to report their status. Research has indicated that proxies over-report symptoms on the patient’s behalf. This study aimed to quantify the extent of proxy-introduced bias on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health (PROMIS GH) scale for mental (GMH) and physical (GPH) scores.
This retrospective cohort study included incident stroke patients seen in a cerebrovascular clinic who completed PROMIS GH between 10/12/15 and 6/6/18. Differential item functioning (DIF) evaluated measurement invariance of patient versus proxy responses. DIF impact was assessed by comparing the initial score to the DIF-adjusted score. Subgroup analyses evaluated DIF within strata of stroke severity, measured by modified Rankin Scale (≤ 1, 2, 3+), and time since stroke (≤ 30, 31–90, > 90 days).
Of 1351 stroke patients (age 60.5 ± 14.9, 45.1% female), proxy help completing PROMIS GH was required by 406 patients (30.1%). Proxies indicated significantly worse response to all items. No items for GMH or GPH were identified as having meaningful DIF. In subgroup analyses, no DIF was found by severity or 31–90 days post-stroke. In patients within 30 and > 90 days of stroke, DIF was detected for 2 items. Accounting for DIF had negligible effects on scores.
Our findings revealed the overestimation of symptoms by proxies is a real difference and not the result of measurement non-invariance. PROMIS GH items do not perform differently or have spuriously inflated severity estimates when administered to proxies instead of patients.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcomes Proxy Differential item functioning PROMIS GH
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Williams, L. S., Bakas, T., Brizendine, E., Plue, L., Tu, W., Hendrie, H., et al. (2006). How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke, 37(8), 2081–2085. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000230583.10311.9f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kozlowski, A. J., Singh, R., Victorson, D., Miskovic, A., Lai, J. S., Harvey, R. L., et al. (2015). Agreement between responses from community-dwelling persons with stroke and their proxies on the NIH neurological quality of life (Neuro-QoL) short forms. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(11), 1986–1992 e1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Oczkowski, C., & O’Donnell, M. (2010). Reliability of proxy respondents for patients with stroke: A systematic review. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 19(5), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Brandon, T. G., Becker, B. D., Bevans, K. B., & Weiss, P. F. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system tools for collecting patient-reported outcomes in children with Juvenile Arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 69(3), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., Feeny, D. H., Shuaib, A., Carriere, K. C., & Nasser, A. M. (2004). Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke, 35(2), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000110984.91157.BD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Skolarus, L. E., Sanchez, B. N., Morgenstern, L. B., Garcia, N. M., Smith, M. A., Brown, D. L., et al. (2010). Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke, 41(3), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.571703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Weinfurt, K. P., Trucco, S. M., Willke, R. J., & Schulman, K. A. (2002). Measuring agreement between patient and proxy responses to multidimensional health-related quality-of-life measures in clinical trials. An application of psychometric profile analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(6), 608–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Katzan, I., Speck, M., Dopler, C., Urchek, J., Bielawski, K., Dunphy, C., et al. (2011). The Knowledge Program: An innovative, comprehensive electronic data capture system and warehouse. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2011, p. 683–692.Google Scholar
- 23.Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Jolley, L., & van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques. DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S115–S123. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245183.28384.ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd edn.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 29.Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Crins, M. H. P., Terwee, C. B., Ogreden, O., Schuller, W., Dekker, P., Flens, G., et al. (2019). Differential item functioning of the PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain behavior item banks across patients with different musculoskeletal disorders and persons from the general population. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2087-x.Google Scholar
- 32.Hays, R. D., Calderon, J. L., Spritzer, K. L., Reise, S. P., & Paz, S. H. (2018). Differential item functioning by language on the PROMIS((R)) physical functioning items for children and adolescents. Quality of Life Research, 27(1), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1691-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Wanders, R. B., Wardenaar, K. J., Kessler, R. C., Penninx, B. W., Meijer, R. R., & de Jonge, P. (2015). Differential reporting of depressive symptoms across distinct clinical subpopulations: What DIFference does it make? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Ellis, B. H., Bannister, W. M., Cox, J. K., Fowler, B. M., Shannon, E. D., Drachman, D., et al. (2003). Utilization of the propensity score method: An exploratory comparison of proxy-completed to self-completed responses in the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar