Cargando…

COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND: Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., Mokkink, L. B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29550964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
_version_ 1783313018452443136
author Terwee, C. B.
Prinsen, C. A. C.
Chiarotto, A.
Westerman, M. J.
Patrick, D. L.
Alonso, J.
Bouter, L. M.
de Vet, H. C. W.
Mokkink, L. B.
author_facet Terwee, C. B.
Prinsen, C. A. C.
Chiarotto, A.
Westerman, M. J.
Patrick, D. L.
Alonso, J.
Bouter, L. M.
de Vet, H. C. W.
Mokkink, L. B.
author_sort Terwee, C. B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings. RESULTS: Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. DISCUSSION: The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5891557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58915572018-04-17 COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study Terwee, C. B. Prinsen, C. A. C. Chiarotto, A. Westerman, M. J. Patrick, D. L. Alonso, J. Bouter, L. M. de Vet, H. C. W. Mokkink, L. B. Qual Life Res Article BACKGROUND: Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings. RESULTS: Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. DISCUSSION: The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-03-17 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5891557/ /pubmed/29550964 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 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.
spellingShingle Article
Terwee, C. B.
Prinsen, C. A. C.
Chiarotto, A.
Westerman, M. J.
Patrick, D. L.
Alonso, J.
Bouter, L. M.
de Vet, H. C. W.
Mokkink, L. B.
COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study
title COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study
title_full COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study
title_fullStr COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study
title_full_unstemmed COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study
title_short COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study
title_sort cosmin methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a delphi study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29550964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
work_keys_str_mv AT terweecb cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT prinsencac cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT chiarottoa cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT westermanmj cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT patrickdl cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT alonsoj cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT bouterlm cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT devethcw cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy
AT mokkinklb cosminmethodologyforevaluatingthecontentvalidityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresadelphistudy