Cargando…
Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it?
BACKGROUND: Two important goals when using questionnaires are (a) measurement: the questionnaire is constructed to assign numerical values that accurately represent the test taker’s attribute, and (b) prediction: the questionnaire is constructed to give an accurate forecast of an external criterion....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5997739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1720-4 |
_version_ | 1783331098664632320 |
---|---|
author | Smits, Niels van der Ark, L. Andries Conijn, Judith M. |
author_facet | Smits, Niels van der Ark, L. Andries Conijn, Judith M. |
author_sort | Smits, Niels |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Two important goals when using questionnaires are (a) measurement: the questionnaire is constructed to assign numerical values that accurately represent the test taker’s attribute, and (b) prediction: the questionnaire is constructed to give an accurate forecast of an external criterion. Construction methods aimed at measurement prescribe that items should be reliable. In practice, this leads to questionnaires with high inter-item correlations. By contrast, construction methods aimed at prediction typically prescribe that items have a high correlation with the criterion and low inter-item correlations. The latter approach has often been said to produce a paradox concerning the relation between reliability and validity [1–3], because it is often assumed that good measurement is a prerequisite of good prediction. OBJECTIVE: To answer four questions: (1) Why are measurement-based methods suboptimal for questionnaires that are used for prediction? (2) How should one construct a questionnaire that is used for prediction? (3) Do questionnaire-construction methods that optimize measurement and prediction lead to the selection of different items in the questionnaire? (4) Is it possible to construct a questionnaire that can be used for both measurement and prediction? ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: An empirical data set consisting of scores of 242 respondents on questionnaire items measuring mental health is used to select items by means of two methods: a method that optimizes the predictive value of the scale (i.e., forecast a clinical diagnosis), and a method that optimizes the reliability of the scale. We show that for the two scales different sets of items are selected and that a scale constructed to meet the one goal does not show optimal performance with reference to the other goal. DISCUSSION: The answers are as follows: (1) Because measurement-based methods tend to maximize inter-item correlations by which predictive validity reduces. (2) Through selecting items that correlate highly with the criterion and lowly with the remaining items. (3) Yes, these methods may lead to different item selections. (4) For a single questionnaire: Yes, but it is problematic because reliability cannot be estimated accurately. For a test battery: Yes, but it is very costly. Implications for the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires are discussed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5997739 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59977392018-06-25 Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? Smits, Niels van der Ark, L. Andries Conijn, Judith M. Qual Life Res Special Section: Test Construction (by invitation only) BACKGROUND: Two important goals when using questionnaires are (a) measurement: the questionnaire is constructed to assign numerical values that accurately represent the test taker’s attribute, and (b) prediction: the questionnaire is constructed to give an accurate forecast of an external criterion. Construction methods aimed at measurement prescribe that items should be reliable. In practice, this leads to questionnaires with high inter-item correlations. By contrast, construction methods aimed at prediction typically prescribe that items have a high correlation with the criterion and low inter-item correlations. The latter approach has often been said to produce a paradox concerning the relation between reliability and validity [1–3], because it is often assumed that good measurement is a prerequisite of good prediction. OBJECTIVE: To answer four questions: (1) Why are measurement-based methods suboptimal for questionnaires that are used for prediction? (2) How should one construct a questionnaire that is used for prediction? (3) Do questionnaire-construction methods that optimize measurement and prediction lead to the selection of different items in the questionnaire? (4) Is it possible to construct a questionnaire that can be used for both measurement and prediction? ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: An empirical data set consisting of scores of 242 respondents on questionnaire items measuring mental health is used to select items by means of two methods: a method that optimizes the predictive value of the scale (i.e., forecast a clinical diagnosis), and a method that optimizes the reliability of the scale. We show that for the two scales different sets of items are selected and that a scale constructed to meet the one goal does not show optimal performance with reference to the other goal. DISCUSSION: The answers are as follows: (1) Because measurement-based methods tend to maximize inter-item correlations by which predictive validity reduces. (2) Through selecting items that correlate highly with the criterion and lowly with the remaining items. (3) Yes, these methods may lead to different item selections. (4) For a single questionnaire: Yes, but it is problematic because reliability cannot be estimated accurately. For a test battery: Yes, but it is very costly. Implications for the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires are discussed. Springer International Publishing 2017-11-02 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5997739/ /pubmed/29098607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1720-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 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 | Special Section: Test Construction (by invitation only) Smits, Niels van der Ark, L. Andries Conijn, Judith M. Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
title | Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
title_full | Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
title_fullStr | Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
title_full_unstemmed | Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
title_short | Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
title_sort | measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it? |
topic | Special Section: Test Construction (by invitation only) |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5997739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1720-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smitsniels measurementversuspredictionintheconstructionofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairescanwehaveourcakeandeatit AT vanderarklandries measurementversuspredictionintheconstructionofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairescanwehaveourcakeandeatit AT conijnjudithm measurementversuspredictionintheconstructionofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairescanwehaveourcakeandeatit |