Psychometric performance of the OECD Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys Patient Questionnaire (PaRIS-PQ) among adults with chronic conditions in Norway

Purpose The OECD Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) initiative aims to provide standardised, internationally comparable patient-reported indicators for people living with chronic conditions receiving primary or generalist ambulatory care. This study evaluated the psychometric performance of the multi-item scales in the Norwegian PaRIS Patient Questionnaire (PaRIS-PQ). Methods Data were drawn from the 2023 Norwegian PaRIS Main Survey. Respondents aged ≥ 45 years with at least one self-reported chronic condition were included. Measures were PROMIS Global Physical Health, PROMIS Global Mental Health, and WHO-5 Well-Being Index as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); the Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) as a patient-reported experience measure (PREM); and the Porter–Novelli Scale (PNS) and self-management confidence as capability-related measures. Analyses assessed structural validity, internal consistency reliability, measurement invariance, item functioning, and construct validity. Results Of 8,683 respondents, 6,691 reported at least one chronic condition. PROM scales performed best, with acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.80–0.89) and strongest confirmatory support for PROMIS Global Physical Health (CFI = 0.992, RMSEA = 0.080). The PREM (P3CEQ) showed weaker performance, with suboptimal fit for the total scale (CFI = 0.818, RMSEA = 0.132), limited scalar invariance, and low internal consistency for the care coordination subscale (α = 0.61). Capability-related measures showed mixed performance. Metric invariance was supported across all tested models, whereas scalar invariance was less consistent. Construct validity findings were consistent with expectations. Conclusion PROM scales showed the most consistent psychometric support. PREM and capability-related measures were more heterogeneous and require cautious, scale-specific interpretation, especially in subgroup comparisons and when used as latent measures. Evaluation and refinement of weaker experience- and capability-related measures is warranted.