Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Item Bank, Version 1.0: Physical Function Assessment for Athletic Patient Populations.

CONTEXT: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks have been validated for general populations, but their application to high-functioning patient populations remains speculative.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the measurement properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, when applied to individuals representing high levels of physical ability.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I and III collegiate athletic training rooms and intramural events.

PATIENTS OR OTHER

PARTICIPANTS

A heterogeneous sample of 215 adults from Division I or Division III collegiate or recreational sports volunteered for this study. Participants were divided into 4 groups depending on sport activity and injury status: healthy collegiate (HC; 33 men, 37 women; age = 19.7 ± 1.1 years), injured and currently active in sport (IP; 21 men, 29 women; age = 19.9 ± 1.2 years), injured and currently not active in sport (INP; 12 men, 18 women; age = 19.7 ± 1.3 years), and healthy recreational (HR; 47 men, 18 women; age = 20.1 ± 1.4 years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed 2 assessments: (1) an injury-history questionnaire and (2) the PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, in computer-adaptive form. Mean PROMIS physical function scores were determined for each group.

RESULTS

The PROMIS physical function score for the HC group (61.7 ± 6.0) was higher than for the IP (54.9 ± 7.5) and INP (44.1 ± 8.2) groups (P < .001). The IP group had a higher score than the INP group (P < .001). Mean PROMIS scores were not different between the HC and HR participants (mean difference = 1.9, P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

The computer-adaptive PROMIS physical function item bank, version 1.0, accurately distinguished injury status in elite-level athletes on a physical function latent trait continuum. Although it was unable to distinguish HC athletes from HR athletes, exposing a possible ceiling effect, it offers potential for use as an outcome instrument for athletic trainers and other sports medicine clinicians.