Observational studyJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS
Observational study in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOral anticancer medications are standard care for cancer. Medication adherence influences health outcomes, but valid, reliable measures assessing self-reported medication adherence are limited. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS METHODOLOGY: This was a secondary analysis from a longitudinal observational study examining medication adherence, symptoms, quality of life, and financial hardship among individuals prescribed oral anticancer medications for multiple myeloma. PMAS measured self-reported medication adherence. Self-report and medical record data assessed participant characteristics and adherence correlates. Objective medication adherence indices were generated from continuous electronic event monitored data. Internal consistency reliability was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. Dimensionality was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed considering adherence correlates. Spearman rank-order correlations summarized associations between PMAS and electronic event monitored data.
resultsPMAS items had limited variability, with high adherence over time. Reliability of PMAS scores was adequate (T1 α = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.87; T2 α = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89). Confirmatory factor analysis fit was better for sub-scales (Medication Beliefs and Knowledge and Medication Taking Behaviors) than Total scale, particularly for the Medication Beliefs and Knowledge subscale. Adherence correlates were observed as expected between PMAS and age, self-reported cognitive function, symptom severity, and depression. Weak/moderate positive associations were found between PMAS and electronic event monitored data.
conclusionsReliability, two-factor dimensionality, and construct validity were supported, with some evidence of concurrent criterion validity with electronic event monitored adherence data. Additional validation testing is needed to support findings. Evidence supports the feasibility of longitudinal oral anticancer medication adherence assessment monitoring using PMAS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.