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.