PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 13, 2026Health and Quality of Life Outcomes0 citationsOpen Access

Translation, cultural adaptation, and psychometric validation of the Chinese versions of the PROMIS + HF-27 and PROMIS + HF-10 profiles in patients with heart failure

WLWanhui LiZPZhiyi PeiWLW. Liu

Key Result

The Chinese versions of the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, including acceptable construct validity and excellent test-retest reliability.

Key Points

  • The study aims to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the PROMIS + HF profiles for assessing health-related quality of life in Chinese heart failure patients.
  • Translation and cultural adaptation of PROMIS + HF-27 and PROMIS + HF-10 profiles.
  • Cross-sectional study with longitudinal component conducted at tertiary hospitals in China.
  • Participants completed various questionnaires including PROMIS + HF profiles, KCCQ, and MLHFQ for psychometric analysis.
  • Evaluated psychometric properties included construct validity, criterion validity, reliability, and responsiveness.
  • Both PROMIS + HF profiles showed no floor or ceiling effects.
  • Construct validity supported by CFA with acceptable fit indices for both profiles.
  • Significant correlations found between PROMIS + HF scores and the 6-Minute Walk Test, KCCQ, and MLHFQ scores.
  • Internal consistency was good to excellent for PROMIS + HF-27 and acceptable for PROMIS + HF-10.
  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.89–0.97) and medium to large effect sizes for responsiveness in most domains.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=420)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

P
Population
420 Chinese patients with heart failure, mean age 57.68 years, recruited from tertiary hospitals in China.
I
Intervention
Chinese versions of the PROMIS + HF-27 and PROMIS + HF-10 profiles
O
Outcome
Psychometric properties including floor/ceiling effects, construct validity, criterion-related validity, convergent validity, known-groups validity, reliability and responsivenesspatient reported

The Chinese versions of the PROMIS + HF-27 and PROMIS + HF-10 profiles demonstrate satisfactory psychometric properties, supporting their use for evaluating health-related quality of life in Chinese heart failure patients.

Limitations

  • Predictive validity for long-term prognosis was not evaluated

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent clinical syndrome characterized by dyspnea, fatigue, exercise intolerance, and oedema, significantly impairing patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The PROMIS + HF profile is a targeted instrument designed to evaluate novel interventions, enhance clinical care and shared decision-making, and assess quality of care. However, a linguistically validated Chinese version is currently lacking. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the PROMIS + HF into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties among Chinese patients with HF. Following a standardized cross-cultural adaptation process, the psychometric properties of the Chinese PROMIS + HF profiles (PROMIS + HF-27 and PROMIS + HF-10) were evaluated. A cross-sectional study with a longitudinal component was conducted using convenience sampling to recruit eligible patients from tertiary hospitals in China between September 2022 and February 2023. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, the PROMIS + HF profiles, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). Psychometric evaluation included floor/ceiling effects, construct validity, criterion-related validity, convergent validity, known-groups validity, reliability and responsiveness. A total of 420 patients (mean age 57.68 years) were included. Both profiles exhibited an absence of floor and ceiling effects. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) supported the construct validity of both profiles, demonstrating acceptable fit indices after modification (PROMIS + HF-27: χ2/df = 3.874, CFI = 0.869, TLI = 0.855, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.08; PROMIS + HF-10: χ2/df = 3.408, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.038, RMSEA = 0.073). Criterion-related validity was supported by significant correlations between overall, physical health scores and the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Convergent validity was demonstrated through strong correlations with KCCQ and MLHFQ scores, and known-groups validity was confirmed by the instruments’ ability to distinguish between New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes. Internal consistency was good to excellent for the PROMIS + HF-27 (Cronbach’s α: 0.87–0.95) and acceptable to good for PROMIS + HF-10 (Cronbach’ α/Spearman-Brown: 0.71–0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent for both instruments (ICC: 0.89–0.97). Responsiveness was demonstrated in the longitudinal subsample, with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.41–0.66) observed for most domains, except for the psychological and social scores in the PROMIS + HF-10, which showed small change (Cohen’s d = 0.26–0.29). The Chinese versions of the PROMIS + HF-27 and PROMIS + HF-10 profiles demonstrate satisfactory psychometric properties, supporting their use for the comprehensive evaluation of HRQoL in Chinese HF patients. The PROMIS + HF-27 is recommended for academic research requiring high precision, whereas the PROMIS + HF-10 offers a time-efficient alternative for routine screening in clinical practice. Future research should further evaluate their predictive validity for long-term prognosis.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Li et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (n=420). Chinese versions of PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 was evaluated on Psychometric validation (construct validity, reliability, responsiveness). The Chinese versions of the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, including acceptable construct validity and excellent test-retest reliability.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dc87983afacbeac03e9d66https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-026-02527-7
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper