Translation and psychometric validation of the traditional Chinese version of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system Pediatric-25 Profile version 2.0 (PROMIS-25) in Chinese Children with Cancer in Hong Kong

Abstract

To translate and cross-cultural validate the PROMIS Paediatric-25 Profile 2.0 (PROMIS-25) into traditional Chinese, and to investigate its psychometric properties in children with cancer in Hong Kong. Methods: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy translation methodology was adopted in this study. Three panel members evaluated the semantic equivalence and content validity. The psychometric properties were tested with 103 children with cancer (10 to 18 years). Internal consistency and structural validity were examined by Cronbach's alpha and Rasch analysis. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed by correlating it with traditional Chinese paediatric quality of life inventory TM 4.0 domains (traditional Chinese This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Quality of life research .

Responsiveness and Minimally Important Differences of the Traditional Chinese Version of PROMIS Paediatric-25 Profile in Chinese Children With Cancer

“…These analyses were conducted using SPSS v. 23.0. (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, New York: IBM Corp). Distribution-based method (MID-D): This method relies on the calculation of the SEM using the formula: SEM = SD√(1-α),17 where SD is the standard deviation of the precancer treatment score and α is the ICC value for the test-retest reliability of the traditional Chinese PROMIS-25 as determined in our previous study 26. A SEM quantifies the precision of an instrument and can be interpreted as the smallest detectable change, or the smallest amount of change that is not attributed to the measurement error 22.…”

“…20,21 These analyses were conducted using SPSS v. (1-α), 17 where SD is the standard deviation of the precancer treatment score and α is the ICC value for the test-retest reliability of the traditional Chinese PROMIS-25 as determined in our previous study. 26 A SEM quantifies the precision of an instrument and can be interpreted as the smallest detectable change, or the smallest amount of change that is not attributed to the measurement error. 22 After determining the SEM, the MID-D was calculated using the formula: MID-D = 1.96 √ 2 x SEM.…”

“…Since the responsiveness and MIDs of the original English or traditional Chinese PROMIS-25 in assessing the HRQOL of children with cancer have not been established, 23 the current study aimed to assess the responsiveness and MIDs of various domains of the traditional Chinese PROMIS-25 in Chinese children with cancer, which might support the applicability of the instrument in assessing temporal changes in HRQOL among Chinese children with cancer.…”

“…The PROMIS-25 has been translated into different languages and has demonstrated good internal consistency, construct validity, and structural validity in evaluating HRQOL of children with different diseases. 3,[12][13][14] Although the traditional Chinese PROMIS-25 has shown good psychometric properties, a valid HRQOL instrument should be sensitive enough to detect changes in patient outcomes over time (ie, good responsiveness). The guidelines for the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) have recommended the evaluation of responsiveness based on testing predefined hypotheses regarding the correlations between changes in scores of the tested instrument and other instruments with similar (or dissimilar) constructs.…”

The Associations Between Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity Levels and Mental Health in Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…The PedsQL was completed by the parents as the parent proxy-report could provide supplementary information on children and adolescents' perceptions (Golubović & Skrbić, 2013 ). We gauged each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (almost always) and reverse-transformed to a 0–100 scale (0 = 100, 1 = 75, 2 = 50, 3 = 25, 4 = 0); the higher the score, the greater the participants' QoL (Chan et al, 2021 ). In this study, the internal consistency was acceptable to good, and Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 for the overall questionnaire with the subscales ranging from 0.73 to 0.90 (see Appendix B).…”