This study aimed to assess construct validity against commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), test–retest reliability and responsiveness of seven Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerised adaptive testing (CATs) in Dutch adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and assess their acceptability in healthcare providers and people with T2D.

A cross-sectional observational study in people with T2D and qualitative study involving both people with T2D and healthcare professionals.

Participants with T2D were recruited from the ongoing Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort in the West-Friesland area of the Netherlands. Additionally, people with T2D and advanced chronic kidney disease were recruited at the outpatient clinics of Amsterdam University Medical Centre and ‘Niercentrum aan de Amstel’, both in the Amsterdam area of the Netherlands. The healthcare professionals involved in the qualitative part were recruited at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

314 people with T2D (age 64.0±10.8 years, 63.7% men).

Participants completed seven PROMIS CATs (assessing (1) Physical Function, (2) Pain Interference, (3) Fatigue, (4) Sleep Disturbance, (5) Anxiety, (6) Depression and (7) Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities), and PROMs measuring similar constructs. After 2 weeks and 6 months, participants completed the CATs measures again, together with seven Global Rating Scales (GRS) on perceived change in each domain. Construct validity was assessed using Pearson’s correlations. Test–retest reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Measurement error was assessed by the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Responsiveness was assessed by correlations between change scores on the PROMIS CAT and GRS. Acceptability was assessed through focus groups and interviews in healthcare providers and people with T2D.

Except for Fatigue, all PROMIS CAT domains demonstrated sufficient construct validity, since ≥75% of the results was in accordance with a priori hypotheses. All seven PROMIS CATs showed sufficient test–retest reliability (ICCs 0.73–0.91). SEM and MDC ranged from 2.1 to 2.7 and from 5.7 to 7.4, respectively. Responsiveness was rated as insufficient in this study design as there was almost no change in participants’ own rating of their health compared with 6 months ago according to a global rating of change.

During the focus groups and interviews, healthcare providers and people with T2D agreed that CATs could serve as a conversation starter in routine care, but should never replace personal consultations with a doctor. If implemented, participants would be willing to spend 15 min to complete the PROMIS CATs.

The PROMIS CATs showed sufficient construct validity and test–retest reliability in most domains in people with T2D. Responsiveness needs to be evaluated in a population with poorer diabetes control or in a study design with longer follow-up. The CATs are well accepted to be used in care to identify relevant topics, but should not replace personal contact with the doctor.