Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Public Health

Sec. Aging and Public Health

Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1631442

This article is part of the Research TopicAdvancing Measurement Validity in Clinical and Dynamic PsychologyView all 4 articles

Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 profile in Community-Dwelling Elderly People with Multimorbidities

Provisionally accepted
Ting  ZhaoTing Zhao1,2Yan  ZhangYan Zhang2Qinghua  CuiQinghua Cui2Xiaoxia  HanXiaoxia Han3Jialin  ChenJialin Chen4Min  ZhangMin Zhang1*
  • 1First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
  • 2School of Nursing and Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China
  • 3Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China
  • 4School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item (PROMIS-29) Profile is commonly used to measure patients’ self-reported health status. This study examined the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 (v2.1) in these elderly individuals. Methods: Cognitive interviews and psychometric evaluations were conducted between January and August 2023. Cognitive interviews were conducted in accordance with the Cognitive Interviewing-Reporting Framework. The Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 was revised based on feedback from respondents and experts. The structural validity of the PROMIS-29 was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The convergent and discriminant validities were assessed by calculating Spearman's rank correlation and comparing known group differences. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s α. Item response theory (IRT)-based psychometric assessment using Rasch models for unidimensionality, local independence, item characteristic curve (ICC) matrices and model fit. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to examine demographic bias. Results: A total of 606 cases with a mean age of (72.88±7.2) were included. The CFA showed acceptable convergence. PROMIS-29 was significantly correlated with comparable domains in the legacy questionnaires. Cronbach’s α of the instrument ranged from 0.82 to 0.95. The Rasch models explained 44.5% and 73.2% of the variance, respectively. Local independence analysis showed that the maximum standardized residual correlation coefficients between items within the short form ranged from 0 to 0.69 in absolute value. All items demonstrated excellent discriminatory power. A good Rasch model fit was revealed in terms of the outfit MNSQ, infit MNSQ, and overall outfit MNSQ. Most items showed acceptable item characteristic curve matrices and did not have statistically significant bias (DIF). Conclusions: The Chinese version of the PROMIS-29 showed acceptable psychometric properties in community-dwelling elderly adults with multimorbidities. These findings suggest that this questionnaire can be beneficial in the assessment of symptoms and function in elderly population.

Keywords: PROMIS-29, Psychometric validation, multimorbidity, Elderly, item response theory

Received: 19 May 2025; Accepted: 30 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zhao, Zhang, Cui, Han, Chen and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Min Zhang, minzhangzm@hotmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.