TY - JOUR
T1 - The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM)
T2 - An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness
AU - Bryant, Elizabeth
AU - Murtagh, Shemane
AU - Finucane, Laura
AU - McCrum, Carol
AU - Mercer, Christopher
AU - Smith, Toby
AU - Canby, Guy
AU - Rowe, David
AU - Moore, A.
N1 - This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Bryant E, Murtagh S, Finucane L, et al. The Brighton musculoskeletal Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM): An assessment of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Physiother Res Int. 2018;e1715, which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pri.1715. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
PY - 2018/5/11
Y1 - 2018/5/11
N2 - Background: In response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed a musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure.
Objectives: This study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings.
Methods: Two hundred and twenty four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East of England with a musculoskeletal condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, n=224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n=42), validity (internal and external construct validity, n=224) and responsiveness (internal, n=25).
Results: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’. Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both ‘Functionality’ (α = .85, 95% CI = .81- .88) and ‘Wellbeing’ (α = .80, 95% CI = .75- .84). Test-retest analyses (n= 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between ‘Functionality’ (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72-.91) and ‘Wellbeing’ scores (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72- .91). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’ test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score). Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03).
Conclusion: The BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.
AB - Background: In response for the need of a freely available, stand-alone, validated outcome measure for use within musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, sensitive enough to measure clinical effectiveness, we developed a musculoskeletal patient reported outcome measure.
Objectives: This study examined the validity and reliability of the newly developed Brighton musculoskeletal Patient Reported Outcome Measure (BmPROM) within physiotherapy outpatient settings.
Methods: Two hundred and twenty four patients attending physiotherapy outpatient departments in South East of England with a musculoskeletal condition participated in this study. The BmPROM was assessed for user friendliness (rated feedback, n=224), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability, n=42), validity (internal and external construct validity, n=224) and responsiveness (internal, n=25).
Results: Exploratory factor analysis indicated that a two-factor model provides a good fit to the data. Factors were representative of ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’. Correlations observed between the BmPROM and SF-36 domains provided evidence of convergent validity. Reliability results indicated that both subscales were internally consistent with alphas above the acceptable limits for both ‘Functionality’ (α = .85, 95% CI = .81- .88) and ‘Wellbeing’ (α = .80, 95% CI = .75- .84). Test-retest analyses (n= 42) demonstrated a high degree of reliability between ‘Functionality’ (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72-.91) and ‘Wellbeing’ scores (ICC= .84; 95% CI = .72- .91). Further examination of test-retest reliability through the Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the difference between ‘Functionality’ and ‘Wellbeing’ test scores did not vary as a function of absolute test score). Large treatment effect sizes were found for both subscales (Functionality d = 1.10; Wellbeing 1.03).
Conclusion: The BmPROM is a reliable and valid outcome measure for use in evaluating physiotherapy treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.
U2 - 10.1002/pri.1715
DO - 10.1002/pri.1715
M3 - Article
SN - 1358-2267
VL - 23
SP - 1
EP - 7
JO - Physiotherapy Research International
JF - Physiotherapy Research International
IS - 3
M1 - e1715
ER -