Cargando…

Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument

BACKGROUND: Measures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prior, Maria E, Hamzah, Jemaima Che, Francis, Jillian J, Ramsay, Craig R, Castillo, Mayret M, Campbell, Susan E, Azuara-Blanco, Augusto, Burr, Jennifer M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21827689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-112
_version_ 1782217480322678784
author Prior, Maria E
Hamzah, Jemaima Che
Francis, Jillian J
Ramsay, Craig R
Castillo, Mayret M
Campbell, Susan E
Azuara-Blanco, Augusto
Burr, Jennifer M
author_facet Prior, Maria E
Hamzah, Jemaima Che
Francis, Jillian J
Ramsay, Craig R
Castillo, Mayret M
Campbell, Susan E
Azuara-Blanco, Augusto
Burr, Jennifer M
author_sort Prior, Maria E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Measures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology. METHODS: The method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains. RESULTS: The AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3225127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32251272011-11-29 Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument Prior, Maria E Hamzah, Jemaima Che Francis, Jillian J Ramsay, Craig R Castillo, Mayret M Campbell, Susan E Azuara-Blanco, Augusto Burr, Jennifer M BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Measures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology. METHODS: The method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains. RESULTS: The AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data. BioMed Central 2011-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3225127/ /pubmed/21827689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-112 Text en Copyright ©2011 Prior et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Prior, Maria E
Hamzah, Jemaima Che
Francis, Jillian J
Ramsay, Craig R
Castillo, Mayret M
Campbell, Susan E
Azuara-Blanco, Augusto
Burr, Jennifer M
Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
title Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
title_full Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
title_fullStr Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
title_full_unstemmed Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
title_short Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
title_sort pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21827689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-112
work_keys_str_mv AT priormariae prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT hamzahjemaimache prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT francisjillianj prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT ramsaycraigr prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT castillomayretm prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT campbellsusane prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT azuarablancoaugusto prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument
AT burrjenniferm prevalidationmethodsfordevelopingapatientreportedoutcomeinstrument