Reliability of Telephone Acquisition of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test

Purpose Our primary purpose was to evaluate the reliability of telephone administration of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 in a hand and upper extremity population, and secondarily to make comparisons with the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). Methods Patients more than 1 year out from hand surgeries performed at a single tertiary institution were enrolled. Half of the patients completed telephone PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDASH surveys first, followed by computer-based surveys 1 to 10 days later, and the other half completed them in the reverse order. Telephone surveys were readministered 2 to 6 weeks later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to assess agreement between telephone and computer-based scores, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. The proportion of patients with discrepancies in follow-up scores that exceeded estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was evaluated. Results For the 89 enrolled patients, the PROMIS UE CAT CCC was 0.82 (83% confidence interval [83% CI], 0.77-0.86; good), which was significantly lower than 0.92 (83% CI, 0.89-0.94; good to excellent) for the QuickDASH. The PROMIS UE CAT ICC did not differ significantly from the QuickDASH (0.85 and 0.91, respectively). Differences in telephone versus computer scores exceeded 5 points (MCID estimate) for the PROMIS UE CAT in 34% of patients versus 5% of patients exceeding 14 points (MCID estimate) for the QuickDASH. Conclusions Significantly better reliability was observed for the QuickDASH than the PROMIS UE CAT when comparing telephone with computer-based score acquisition. Over one-third of patients demonstrated a clinically relevant difference in scores between the telephone and the computer-administered tests. We conclude that the PROMIS UE CAT should only be administered through computer-based methods. (Copyright (C) 2021 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.)

Automated summary

The study aimed to assess the reliability of telephone administration for PROMIS UE CAT in a hand and upper extremity population compared to QuickDASH. Results showed that QuickDASH had significantly better reliability than PROMIS UE CAT, with some patients demonstrating clinically relevant score differences between telephone and computer-based administration.