The PROMIS-16 reproduces the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores accurately in a probability-based internet panel

Ron D Hays; Patricia M Herman; Anthony Rodriguez; Mary Slaughter; Chengbo Zeng; Maria Orlando Edelen

doi:10.1007/s11136-024-03662-8

The PROMIS-16 reproduces the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores accurately in a probability-based internet panel

Qual Life Res. 2024 Apr 23:10.1007/s11136-024-03662-8. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03662-8. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Ron D Hays¹, Patricia M Herman², Anthony Rodriguez³, Mary Slaughter², Chengbo Zeng⁴, Maria Orlando Edelen⁴

Affiliations

¹ Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, UCLA Department of Medicine, 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 850, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. drhays@ucla.edu.
² RAND Corporation, Behavioral and Policy Sciences, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
³ RAND Corporation, Behavioral and Policy Sciences, 20 Park Plaza #910, Boston, MA, USA.
⁴ Patient Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

PMID: 38652369
PMCID: PMC11496378 (available on 2025-10-23)
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03662-8

Abstract

Purpose: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS)-16 assesses the same multi-item domains but does not include the pain intensity item in the PROMIS-29. We evaluate how well physical and mental health summary scores estimated from the PROMIS-16 reproduce those estimated using the PROMIS-29.

Methods: An evaluation of data collected from 4130 respondents from the KnowledgePanel. Analyses include confirmatory factor analysis to assess physical and mental health latent variables based on PROMIS-16 scores, reliability estimates for the PROMIS measures, mean differences and correlations of scores estimated by the PROMIS-16 with those estimated by the PROMIS-29, and associations between differences in corresponding PROMIS-16 and PROMIS-29 scores by sociodemographic characteristics.

Results: A two-factor (physical and mental health) model adequately fits the PROMIS-16 scores. Reliability estimates for the PROMIS-16 measures were slightly lower than for the PROMIS-29 measures. There were minimal differences between PROMIS physical and mental health summary scores estimated using the PROMIS-16 or the PROMIS-29. PROMIS-16 and PROMIS-29 score differences by sociodemographic characteristics were small. Using the PROMIS pain intensity item when scoring the PROMIS-16 produced similar estimates of physical and mental health summary scores.

Conclusion: The PROMIS-16 provides similar estimates of the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores. The high reliability of these scores indicates they are accurate enough for use with individual patients.

Keywords: Mental health summary; PROMIS-16; PROMIS-29; Physical health summary.

Abstract

Grants and funding