RMD
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. PROMIS Pediatric - Fatigue

PROMIS Pediatric - Fatigue

Last Updated

Purpose

Domain focused, self-reported and parent-reported measures of global, physical, mental, and social health for children in the general population and those living with a chronic condition.

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Sleep
General Health

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Cost Description

Free for short forms, $499.99 annual subscription for NIH toolbox

CDE Status

Availability

The instrument is freely available here: .

See  for currently available PROMIS Bank CDE Details.

Classification

Supplemental - Highly Recommended: Stroke, Congenital Muscular Dystrophy (CMD) in studies of psychosocial functioning, quality-of-life, outcome, and long-term adjustment studies.

 Supplemental: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Chiari I Malformation (CM), Epilepsy, Friedreich's Ataxia (FA), Headache, Huntington's Disease (HD), Mitochondrial Disease (Mito), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Myasthenia Gravis (MG), Neuromuscular Diseases (NMD), Duchenne/Becker Muscular Dystrophy (DMD/BMD), Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), Parkinson's Disease (PD), Stroke, and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)

Exploratory: Cerebral Palsy (CP) Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy (DM) and Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD) and Sport-Related Concussion (SRC)

*Headache specific subtest recommendations : Anxiety (Adult/Pediatric), Depression (Adult/Pediatric), Sleep (Adult)

Populations

Pediatric Disorders

Key Descriptions

  • Usually 4-12 items for each section domain depending on which type of test is being
    performed (Short Form, CAT, or Profile)
  • Minimum and maximum scores depends on the form being used
  • Scoring: Item-levels are scored numerically for an individual's response to each question. PROMIS recommends the best way to find the total raw score is using
    the free HealthMeasures Scoring Service
    (https://www.assessmentcenter.net/ac_scoringservice) or a tool that can automatically
    calculate scores. Scores can also be added up by hand to find the total raw score.
    Then the raw score is converted to a T-score using the table in the Appendix of the link
    below. This standardizes the score with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10.
    Being above or below the standard deviation could be desirable or undesirable based on the domain being measured.
  • Higher scores means more of the concept being measured. Example = more fatigue

Number of Items

Pediatric
? Item bank: 25
? Short form: 10
Parent proxy report for pediatric patients
? Item bank: 23
? Short form: 8
Computer adaptive tests (CAT)
Items dynamically selected for administration from the item bank based on respondent’s previous answer. Usually between 4-12 items or questions.

Time to Administer

5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Preschool Children

2 - 5

years

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Instrument Reviewers

Holly O’Hearn, SPT

Jensyn Bradley SPT, ATC, LAT

Chi-Lun Chiao, SPT

Holt McPherson, SPT

Kenna Peters, SPT

Corinne Woodbine, SPT

Duke University, School of Medicine, Division of Physical Therapy.

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

General Health

Considerations

  • PROMIS measures can be used in the general population and with pediatric populations with a chronic condition(s)
  • PROMIS measures have a larger range of measurement than most conventional measures, decreasing floor and ceiling effects as a result
  • PROMIS measures have fewer items than conventional measures, thereby decreasing respondent burden. When used as computer adaptive tests, PROMIS measures usually require 4-6 items for precise measurement of health-related constructs
  • Translations: The assessments are available via PDF in Spanish and can be obtained in other languages by contacting translations@Healthmeasures.net

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Nephrotic Syndrome: Selewski et al, 2017; n=127; Age Range=8-17; Severity= active nephrotic syndrome

  • MID = 3

 

Pediatric PROMIS Domain

Adjacent Categories

Mean MID (SD) for pwJIA

 

Fatigue

 

  

Mild Problems

4 (3.44)

 

Moderate Problems

3.65 (3.56)

 

Severe Problems

 5.43 (3.32)

 

Cut-Off Scores

Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: (Morgan et al 2017; n=4; Age Range=15-20; Severity = no problems/mild problems, mild/moderate problems, moderate/severe problems)

 

Pediatric PROMIS Domain

Adjacent Categories

Pediatric patients with JIA Classifications

Fatigue

No Problems

<45

Mild Problems

45-60

Moderate Problems

61-70

Severe Problems

>70

Normative Data

Diverse Pedatric Sample

Dewitt et al, 2011; n=3048; age=8-17; Diverse Sample of Pediatric Patients

 

   - Mean (SD) Pediatric PROMIS = 50 (10)

 

Nephrotic Syndrome: Selewski et al, 2017; n=127; Age Range=8-17; Severity= active nephrotic syndrome

  • Baseline
    • Mean score (n=127): 49.6 (12.6)
  • Event visit [occurred after remission or 3-months post baseline]
    • Mean score (n=112): 43.4 (12.7)
  • Final visit [12-months post-baseline]
    • Mean score (n=90): 43.3 (13.4)

Cancer

Macpherson et al, 2018; n=96; Age= 8-18; recently diagnosed with cancer and receiving chemotherapy, short form adolescent and children form respectively

  • Baseline mean score: 53 and 51.3
  • Count nadir mean score: 53.7 and 51.4
  • End of round 1 of chemotherapy mean score: 46.7 and 48.4

Test/Retest Reliability

General population: (Varni et al, 2014; n=331; age= 12.1; General Pediatrics)

  • Excellent test-retest Reliability for short form (ICC = .76)
  • Excellent test-retest Reliability for CAT (ICC = .80)

Internal Consistency

Cancer: Macpherson et al, 2018, n=96; Age= 8-18; recently diagnosed with cancer and receiving chemotherapy:

 

     - Excellent Internal Consistency

 

Cronbach Alpha

 

T1

T2

T3

PROMIS-C

0.94

0.93

0.94

PROMIS-A

0.96

0.96

0.96

 

General: (Varni et al, 2014)

  • Excellent Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.87)

 

Childhood-Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)

Jones, 2017; n=100 (at visit baseline); Age=15.8?(2.2)

  • Excellent internal consistency for PROMIS-Short Form pooled across all visits: (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.97)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Cancer: Macpherson et al, 2018, n=96; Age= 8-18; recently diagnosed with cancer and receiving chemotherapy:

     - Concurrent Validity: Consistently strong correlation with the legacy

       fatigue measures across all three collection points between the FS-A and the PROMIS measure and moderate to strong between the FS-C and the PROMIS measure.

 

 

Fatigue Scale-Child

Fatigue Scale-Adolescent

 

Measure

N

Correlation

P

N

Correlation

P

PROMIS T1

28

0.65

0.0002

58

0.85

<0.0001

PROMIS T2

24

0.88

<0.0001

52

0.9

<0.0001

PROMIS T3

26

0.75

<0.0001

52

0.89

<0.0001

Construct Validity

Nephrotic Syndrome: Selewski et al, 2017; n=127; Age Range=8-17; Severity= active nephrotic syndrome

    • Adequate correlation with Peds QL Physical Functioning (ρ=-.65)
    • Adequate correlation with Peds QL Emotional Functioning (ρ=-.57)
    • Poor correlation with Peds QL Social Functioning (ρ=-.48)
    • Adequate correlation with Peds QL School Functioning (ρ=-.59)
    • Adequate correlation with overall health-related QOL (ρ=-.73)

Childhood-Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)

Jones, 2017; n=100 (at visit baseline); Age=15.8?(2.2)

 

 

Bivariate correlation (rpool) between pediatric PROMIS short forms and legacy measure subscalesa

Legacy measures

Fatigue

 

SLEDAI‐2K

0.11

 

BILAG

0.08

 

MD‐global

0.08

 

SDI

?0.01

 

Functional Disability Inventory

0.62

 

PedsQL‐GC

  

 

-Summary score

?0.78

 

-Physical function

?0.70

 

-Emotional function

?0.67

 

-Social function

?0.54

 

-School function

?0.71

 

PedsQL‐RM

  

 

-Summary score

?0.74

 

-Pain and hurt

?0.72

 

-Daily activity

?0.53

 

-Treatment

?0.51

 

-Worry

?0.53

 

-Communication

?0.49

 

SMILEY

  

 

-Summary score

0.28

 

-Effect on self

0.39

 

-Limitations

0.03

 

-Social

?0.54

 

-Burden of childhood‐onset SLE

0.36

 

C‐HAQ

  

 

-Summary score

0.42

 

-Dressing/grooming

0.42

 

-Arising

0.46

 

-Eating

0.38

 

-Walking

0.36

 

-Hygiene

0.43

 

-Reach

0.46

 

-Play

0.53

 

-Grip

0.44

 

CHQ‐PF50

  

 

-Psychosocial summary score

?0.36

 

-Physical summary score

?0.37

 

-Physical functioning

?0.35

 

-Bodily pain

?0.41

 

-General health perception

?0.25

 

-搁辞濒别/蝉辞肠颈补濒‐辫丑测蝉颈肠补濒

?0.28

 

-搁辞濒别/蝉辞肠颈补濒‐别尘辞迟颈辞苍补濒/产别丑补惫颈辞谤补濒

?0.35

 

-厂别濒蹿‐别蝉迟别别尘

?0.35

 

-Mental health

?0.37

 

-Behavior

?0.25

 

-Mental health

?0.37

 
  • a Values are the pooled correlation coefficients (rpool) across visits (n?=?280 patient visits). PROMIS?=?Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; SLEDAI‐2K?=?Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000; BILAG?=?British Isles Lupus Assessment Group index; MD‐global?=?physician global disease assessment; SDI?=?Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index; PedsQL‐GC?=?Pediatric Quality of Life Generic Core Scale 4.0; PedsQL‐RM?=?Pediatric Quality of Life Rheumatology Module 3.0; SMILEY?=?Simple Measure of Impact of Lupus Erythematosus in Youngsters; C‐HAQ?=?Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire; CHQ‐PF50?=?Child Health Questionnaire with 50 questions.
  • b Scoring: A?=?12, B?=?8, C?=?1, D?=?0, E?=?0.
  • c On a 10‐point Likert scale, where 0?=?inactive disease.
  • d Range 0–47, where 0?=?absence of damage.
  • e P?<?0.001 and r?>?0.30.

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

General: (Varni et al, 2014)

  • Domains in which higher scores indicate higher functioning (Peer relations, Mobility, and Upper Extremity) display a ceiling effect.
  • Domains in which higher scores indicate lower functioning have a floor effect

Responsiveness

General population: (Varni et al, 2014; n=331; age= 12.1; General Pediatrics)

  • Effect size: -0.14 to -0.10

Bibliography

Dewitt, E.M., Stucky, B.D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D.E., Langer, M., Varni, J.W., Lai, J.S., Yeatts, K.B., Dewalt, D.A. (2011). Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: Built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 794-804. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.012

Jones, J.T., Carle, A.C., Wootton, J., Liberio, B., Lee, J., Schanberg, L.E., Ying, J., Dewitt, E.M., Brunner, H.I. (2017). Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Forms for Use in Childhood-Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis care & research, 69(1), 133–142. doi:10.1002/acr.22927

Macpherson, C. F., Wang, J., DeWalt, D. A., Stern, E. D., Jacobs, S., & Hinds, P. S. (2018). Comparison of Legacy Fatigue Measures With the PROMIS Pediatric Fatigue Short Form. Oncology Nursing Forum, 45(1), 106+. Retrieved from https://link-galegroup-com.proxy.lib.duke.edu/apps/doc/A544711043/AONE?u=duke_perkins&sid=AONE&xid=49f27c4f

 

Morgan, E.M., Mara, C.A., Huang, B., Barnett, K., Carle, A.C., Farrell, J.E., Cook, K.F. (2017). Establishing clinical meaning and defining important differences for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS?) measures in juvenile idiopathic arthritis using standard setting with patients, parents, and providers. Quality of Life 嫩B研究院, 26(3), 565–586. doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1468-2

 

Selewski, D. T., Troost, J. P., Cummings, D., Massengill, S. F., Gbadegesin, R. A., Greenbaum, L. A.,Shatat, I.F., Cai, Y., Kapur, G., Herbert, D., Somers, M.J., Trachtman, H., Pais, P., Seifert, M.E., Goebel, J., Sethna, C.B., Mahan, J.D., Gross, H.E., Herreschoff, E. Liu, Y., Carlozzi, N.E., Reeve, B.B., Dewalt, D. A.,  Gipson, D. S. (2017). Responsiveness of the PROMIS? measures to changes in disease status among pediatric nephrotic syndrome patients: a Midwest pediatric nephrology consortium study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 166. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0737-2

 

Varni, J. W., Magnus, B., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Quinn, H., Thissen, D., Gross, H.E., Huang, I.C.,Dewalt, D. A. (2014). Psychometric properties of the PROMIS pediatric scales: Precision, stability, and comparison of different scoring and administration options. Quality of Life 嫩B研究院, 23(4), 1233-43. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1007/s11136-013-0544-0

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Sep 11, 2024

Structured Clinical Interv...

read more

updated Aug 15, 2023

Adverse Childhood Experien...

read more

updated Sep 7, 2022

Movement Assessment Batter...

read more