Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 10, 2025
The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test MSPT: An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool
Published on: June 30, 2014
Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test
Nikolas H Kazmers1, Yuqing Qiu2, Minkyoung Yoo3
1Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Purpose:
Our primary purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 (v2.0) for a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. Secondarily, we calculated the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) CAT v2.0 and the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) MCID.
Methods:
Adult patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained hand surgeons between March 2015 and September 2019 at an academic tertiary institution were identified. The PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and QuickDASH were collected via tablet computer. Inclusion required response to at least 1 of the instruments at both baseline and follow-up (6 ± 4 weeks), and a response to the anchor question: "Compared to your first evaluation at the University Orthopaedic Center, how would you describe your physical function level now?" An additional anchor question assessing treatment-related improvement was also asked. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach using the mean change difference between groups reporting no change and slight change for both anchor questions, and with the 1/2 SD method.
Results:
Of 2,106 participants, mean age was 48 ± 17 years, 53% were female, and 53% were recovering from surgery. Of these patients, 381 completed the PROMISE UE CAT v2.0, 497 completed the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0, and 2,018 completed the QuickDASH. The score change between baseline and follow-up was significantly different between anchor groups for both anchor-based MCID calculations. Anchor-based MCID values were 3.0 to 4.0 for the UE CAT, 2.1 to 3.6 for the PF CAT, and 10.3 for the QuickDASH. The MCID values per the 1/2 SD method were 4.1, 4.1, and 10.2, respectively.
Conclusions:
We propose MCID ranges of 3.0 to 4.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT v2.0, and 2.1 to 4.1 for the PROMIS PF CAT v2.0. The observed QuickDASH MCID values (10.2-10.3) are within the range of previously published values.
Clinical Relevance:
These MCID estimates will aid in interpreting clinical outcomes and in powering clinical studies.
