An initial psychometric evaluation of the German PROMIS v1.2 Physical Function item bank in patients with a wide range of health conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To translate the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) item bank version 1.2 into German and to investigate psychometric properties of resulting full bank and seven derived short forms. DESIGN: Cross-sectional psychometric study. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient clinics of the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. SUBJECTS: A total of 10 adult patients with various chronic diseases participated in cognitive debriefing interviews. The final item bank was administered to n = 266 adult patients with a broad range of medical conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Patient-reported outcome assessment as part of routine care. MAIN MEASURES: PROMIS v1.2 PF bank; MOS SF-36 PF scale (PF-10). RESULTS: Cross-cultural adaptation of the item bank followed established guidelines. For the final German translation, the corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.44 to 0.84. Cronbach's alpha was high for each PROMIS PF short form ( α = 0.88-0.96). The full PROMIS PF bank and most short forms correlated highly with the SF-36 PF-10 ( r = 0.85-0.90), with the exception of PROMIS Upper Extremity ( r = 0.64). PROMIS Upper Extremity showed ceiling effects and lower agreement with the full bank than other short forms. Unidimensionality was supported for all PROMIS PF measures using traditional factor analysis and nonparametric item response theory. CONCLUSION: The German PROMIS PF bank was found to be conceptually equivalent to the English version and fulfilled the psychometric requirements for use of short forms in clinical practice. Future studies should pay particular attention to samples with upper extremity functional limitations to further investigate the dimensional structure of PF as conceptualized according to PROMIS.

An introduction to the 'Psycho-Physiological-Stress-Test' (PPST)-A standardized instrument for evaluating stress reactions.

Using a standardized instrument to evaluate patients' stress reactions has become more important in daily clinical routines. Different signs or symptoms of stress are often unilaterally explored: the physiological, psychological or social aspects of stress disorders are each viewed on a single dimension. However, all dimensions afflict patients who have persistent health problems due to chronic stress. Therefore, it is important to use a multidimensional approach to acquire data. The 'Psycho-Physiological-Stress-Test' (PPST) was established to achieve a comprehensive understanding of stress and was further developed at the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin in collaboration with the Psychological Department of Freie Universität Berlin. The PPST includes a series of varying stress phases, embedded in two periods of rest. Physiological and psychological parameters are simultaneously measured throughout the test session. Specifically, the PPST activates the sympathetic stress axis, which is measured by heart rate, blood pressure, respiration depth and rate, electro dermal activation and muscle tension (frontalis, masseter, trapezius). Psychological data are simultaneously collected, and include performance, motivation, emotion and behavior. After conducting this diagnostic test, it is possible to identify individual stress patterns that can be discussed with the individual patient to develop and recommend (outpatient) treatment strategies. This paper introduces the PPST as a standardized way to evaluate stress reactions by presenting the results from a sample of psychosomatic inpatients (n = 139) who were treated in Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. We observed that the varying testing conditions provoked adjusted changes in the different physiological parameters and psychological levels.

Evaluation of Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs) for longitudinal monitoring of depression, anxiety, and stress reactions.

BACKGROUND: Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) based on Item Response Theory, (IRT) offers an efficient way for accurate measurement of patient reported outcomes. The efficiency lies within a minimal response burden and a high measurement precision over a broad measurement range. The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the responsiveness of CATs measuring anxiety, depression, and stress reaction to standard static self-assessment tools. METHODS: Longitudinal data of n=595 psychosomatic inpatients were analyzed for evaluating retest-reliability and sensitivity to change of the CATs compared to static measures (GAD-7, PHQ-9, and PSQ) using correlational and ANOVA statistics. The study hypothesized that CATs are at least as retest-reliable and as sensitive to change as static tools. RESULTS: The three CATs show a low burden for patients, administering on average 5-7 (±2-6SD) items with similar retest-reliability compared to the static tools applied (A-CAT: r=.78 vs. GAD-7: r=.75, D-CAT: r=.71 vs. PHQ-9: r=.75, S-CAT: r=.80 vs. PSQworries scale: r=.80). The CATs were overall as sensitive to change as the static tools (Cohen׳s d ranged between .19 and .69). LIMITATIONS: This is a monocenter, observational, longitudinal study without external clinical criteria; thus generalization to other settings may be limited. CONCLUSIONS: The tested CATs belong to the first generation of CATs being used in daily routine for more than a decade. They are as retest reliable and sensitive to change as static tools. Newer CATs may provide further practical advantages.

Adjustment disorders as a stress-related disorder: a longitudinal study of the associations among stress, resources, and mental health.

OBJECTIVE: Adjustment disorders are re-conceptualized in the DSM-5 as a stress-related disorder; however, besides the impact of an identifiable stressor, the specification of a stress concept, remains unclear. This study is the first to examine an existing stress-model from the general population, in patients diagnosed with adjustment disorders, using a longitudinal design. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 108 patients consecutively admitted for adjustment disorders. Associations of stress perception, emotional distress, resources, and mental health were measured at three time points: the outpatients' presentation, admission for inpatient treatment, and discharge from the hospital. To evaluate a longitudinal stress model of ADs, we examined whether stress at admission predicted mental health at each of the three time points using multiple linear regressions and structural equation modeling. A series of repeated-measures one-way analyses of variance (rANOVAs) was performed to assess change over time. RESULTS: Significant within-participant changes from baseline were observed between hospital admission and discharge with regard to mental health, stress perception, and emotional distress (p<0.001). Stress perception explained nearly half of the total variance (44%) of mental health at baseline; the adjusted R2 increased (0.48), taking emotional distress (i.e., depressive symptoms) into account. The best predictor of mental health at discharge was the level of emotional distress (i.e., anxiety level) at baseline (ß= -0.23, R2corr=0.56, p<0.001). With a CFI of 0.86 and an NFI of 0.86, the fit indices did not allow for acceptance of the stress-model (Cmin/df=15.26; RMSEA=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Stress perception is an important predictor in adjustment disorders, and mental health-related treatment goals are dependent on and significantly impacted by stress perception and emotional distress.