↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validity and reliability of the Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory: validation of a newly-developed survey instrument to measure arthralgia

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Validity and reliability of the Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory: validation of a newly-developed survey instrument to measure arthralgia
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/prom.s47997
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liana D Castel, Kenneth A Wallston, Benjamin R Saville, JoAnn R Alvarez, Bradley D Shields, Irene D Feurer, David Cella

Abstract

There is a need for a survey instrument to measure arthralgia (joint pain) that has been psychometrically validated in the context of existing reference instruments. We developed the 16-item Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory (PRAI) to measure arthralgia severity in 16 joints, in the context of a longitudinal cohort study to assess aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgia in breast cancer survivors and arthralgia in postmenopausal women without breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of the PRAI instrument in these populations, as well as to examine the relationship of patient-reported morning stiffness and arthralgia. We administered the PRAI on paper in 294 women (94 initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy and 200 postmenopausal women without breast cancer) at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 52, as well as once in 36 women who had taken but were no longer taking aromatase inhibitor therapy. Cronbach's alpha was 0.9 for internal consistency of the PRAI. Intraclass correlation coefficients of test-retest reliability were in the range of 0.87-0.96 over repeated PRAI administrations; arthralgia severity was higher in the non-cancer group at baseline than at subsequent assessments. Women with joint comorbidities tended to have higher PRAI scores than those without (estimated difference in mean scores: -0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.5, -0.2; P<0.001). The PRAI was highly correlated with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale item "I have pain in my joints" (reference instrument; Spearman r range: 0.76-0.82). Greater arthralgia severity on the PRAI was also related to decreased physical function (r=-0.47, 95% CI -0.55, -0.37; P<0.001), higher pain interference (r=0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72; P<0.001), less active performance status (estimated difference in location (-0.6, 95% CI -0.9, -0.4; P<0.001), and increased morning stiffness duration (r=0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.69; P<0.0001). We conclude that the psychometric properties of the PRAI are satisfactory for measuring arthralgia severity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Librarian 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Mathematics 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#144
of 186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,137
of 277,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.