Cargando…

Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to advance a checklist of evaluative criteria designed to assess patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures’ developmental measurement properties and applicability, which can be used by systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with a varied range of ex...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Francis, David O., McPheeters, Melissa L., Noud, Meaghan, Penson, David F., Feurer, Irene D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4971647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27484996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4
_version_ 1782446140785950720
author Francis, David O.
McPheeters, Melissa L.
Noud, Meaghan
Penson, David F.
Feurer, Irene D.
author_facet Francis, David O.
McPheeters, Melissa L.
Noud, Meaghan
Penson, David F.
Feurer, Irene D.
author_sort Francis, David O.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to advance a checklist of evaluative criteria designed to assess patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures’ developmental measurement properties and applicability, which can be used by systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with a varied range of expertise in psychometric measure development methodology. METHODS: A directed literature search was performed to identify original studies, textbooks, consensus guidelines, and published reports that propose criteria for assessing the quality of PRO measures. Recommendations from these sources were iteratively distilled into a checklist of key attributes. Preliminary items underwent evaluation through 24 cognitive interviews with clinicians and quantitative researchers. Six measurement theory methodological novices independently applied the final checklist to assess six PRO measures encompassing a variety of methods, applications, and clinical constructs. Agreement between novice and expert scores was assessed. RESULTS: The distillation process yielded an 18-item checklist with six domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (5) scoring and interpretation, and (6) respondent burden and presentation. With minimal instruction, good agreement in checklist item ratings was achieved between quantitative researchers with expertise in measurement theory and less experienced clinicians (mean kappa 0.70; range 0.66–0.87). CONCLUSIONS: We present a simplified checklist that can help guide systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with varied measurement theory expertise to evaluate the strengths and weakness of candidate PRO measures’ developmental properties and the appropriateness for specific applications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4971647
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49716472016-08-04 Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures Francis, David O. McPheeters, Melissa L. Noud, Meaghan Penson, David F. Feurer, Irene D. Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to advance a checklist of evaluative criteria designed to assess patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures’ developmental measurement properties and applicability, which can be used by systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with a varied range of expertise in psychometric measure development methodology. METHODS: A directed literature search was performed to identify original studies, textbooks, consensus guidelines, and published reports that propose criteria for assessing the quality of PRO measures. Recommendations from these sources were iteratively distilled into a checklist of key attributes. Preliminary items underwent evaluation through 24 cognitive interviews with clinicians and quantitative researchers. Six measurement theory methodological novices independently applied the final checklist to assess six PRO measures encompassing a variety of methods, applications, and clinical constructs. Agreement between novice and expert scores was assessed. RESULTS: The distillation process yielded an 18-item checklist with six domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (5) scoring and interpretation, and (6) respondent burden and presentation. With minimal instruction, good agreement in checklist item ratings was achieved between quantitative researchers with expertise in measurement theory and less experienced clinicians (mean kappa 0.70; range 0.66–0.87). CONCLUSIONS: We present a simplified checklist that can help guide systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with varied measurement theory expertise to evaluate the strengths and weakness of candidate PRO measures’ developmental properties and the appropriateness for specific applications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4971647/ /pubmed/27484996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Francis, David O.
McPheeters, Melissa L.
Noud, Meaghan
Penson, David F.
Feurer, Irene D.
Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
title Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
title_full Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
title_fullStr Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
title_full_unstemmed Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
title_short Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
title_sort checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4971647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27484996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4
work_keys_str_mv AT francisdavido checklisttooperationalizemeasurementcharacteristicsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasures
AT mcpheetersmelissal checklisttooperationalizemeasurementcharacteristicsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasures
AT noudmeaghan checklisttooperationalizemeasurementcharacteristicsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasures
AT pensondavidf checklisttooperationalizemeasurementcharacteristicsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasures
AT feurerirened checklisttooperationalizemeasurementcharacteristicsofpatientreportedoutcomemeasures