Cargando…

ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review

Content validity is a fundamental requirement of outcome measures. After reviewing operational needs and existing definitions, content validity we as defined as: the extent to which a measure provides a comprehensive and true assessment of the key relevant elements of a specified construct or attrib...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: MacDermid, Joy C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397968/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36188847
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2021.702596
_version_ 1784772239635251200
author MacDermid, Joy C.
author_facet MacDermid, Joy C.
author_sort MacDermid, Joy C.
collection PubMed
description Content validity is a fundamental requirement of outcome measures. After reviewing operational needs and existing definitions, content validity we as defined as: the extent to which a measure provides a comprehensive and true assessment of the key relevant elements of a specified construct or attribute across a defined range, clearly and equitably for a stated target audience and context. ICF linkage rules from 2002, 2005, and 2019 have provide increasingly clear processes for describing and evaluating content of outcome measures. ICF Core Sets provide international reference standards of the core constructs of importance for different health conditions. Both are important as reference standards during content validation. To summarize their use as reference standards, the following summary indicators were proposed: (1) Measure to ICF linkage, (2) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Absolute Linkage, (3) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Unique Linkage, (4) Core Set Representation, and (5) Core Set Unique Disability Representation. Methods to assess how respondents engage with content are needed to complement ICF-linking. Cognitive interviewing is an ideal method since it used to explore how respondents interpret and calibrate response to individual items on an outcome measure. We proposed a framework for classifying these responses: Clarity/Comprehension, Relevance, Inadequate response definition, Reference Point, Perspective modification, and Calibration Across Items. Our analysis of 24 manuscripts that used ICF linking for content validation since updated linking rules were published found that authors typically used linking to validate existing measures, involved multiple raters, used 2005 linking rules, summarized content at a concept level (e.g., impairment, activity, participation) and/or use core sets as a reference standard. Infrequently, ICF linking was used to create item pools/conceptual frameworks for new measures, applied the full scope of the 2019 linking rules, used summary indicators, or integrated ICF-linking with qualitative methods like cognitive interviews. We conclude that ICF linkage is a powerful tool for content validity during development or validation of PROM. Best practices include use of updated ICF linking rules, triangulation of ICF linking with participant assessments of clarity and relevance preferably obtained using cognitive interview methods, and application of defined summary indicators.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9397968
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93979682022-09-29 ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review MacDermid, Joy C. Front Rehabil Sci Rehabilitation Sciences Content validity is a fundamental requirement of outcome measures. After reviewing operational needs and existing definitions, content validity we as defined as: the extent to which a measure provides a comprehensive and true assessment of the key relevant elements of a specified construct or attribute across a defined range, clearly and equitably for a stated target audience and context. ICF linkage rules from 2002, 2005, and 2019 have provide increasingly clear processes for describing and evaluating content of outcome measures. ICF Core Sets provide international reference standards of the core constructs of importance for different health conditions. Both are important as reference standards during content validation. To summarize their use as reference standards, the following summary indicators were proposed: (1) Measure to ICF linkage, (2) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Absolute Linkage, (3) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Unique Linkage, (4) Core Set Representation, and (5) Core Set Unique Disability Representation. Methods to assess how respondents engage with content are needed to complement ICF-linking. Cognitive interviewing is an ideal method since it used to explore how respondents interpret and calibrate response to individual items on an outcome measure. We proposed a framework for classifying these responses: Clarity/Comprehension, Relevance, Inadequate response definition, Reference Point, Perspective modification, and Calibration Across Items. Our analysis of 24 manuscripts that used ICF linking for content validation since updated linking rules were published found that authors typically used linking to validate existing measures, involved multiple raters, used 2005 linking rules, summarized content at a concept level (e.g., impairment, activity, participation) and/or use core sets as a reference standard. Infrequently, ICF linking was used to create item pools/conceptual frameworks for new measures, applied the full scope of the 2019 linking rules, used summary indicators, or integrated ICF-linking with qualitative methods like cognitive interviews. We conclude that ICF linkage is a powerful tool for content validity during development or validation of PROM. Best practices include use of updated ICF linking rules, triangulation of ICF linking with participant assessments of clarity and relevance preferably obtained using cognitive interview methods, and application of defined summary indicators. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9397968/ /pubmed/36188847 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2021.702596 Text en Copyright © 2021 MacDermid. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Rehabilitation Sciences
MacDermid, Joy C.
ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review
title ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review
title_full ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review
title_fullStr ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review
title_full_unstemmed ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review
title_short ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review
title_sort icf linking and cognitive interviewing are complementary methods for optimizing content validity of outcome measures: an integrated methods review
topic Rehabilitation Sciences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397968/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36188847
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2021.702596
work_keys_str_mv AT macdermidjoyc icflinkingandcognitiveinterviewingarecomplementarymethodsforoptimizingcontentvalidityofoutcomemeasuresanintegratedmethodsreview