Literature DB >> 12074258

Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.

Neil Aaronson1, Jordi Alonso, Audrey Burnam, Kathleen N Lohr, Donald L Patrick, Edward Perrin, Ruth E Stein.   

Abstract

The field of health status and quality of life (QoL) measurement - as a formal discipline with a cohesive theoretical framework, accepted methods, and diverse applications--has been evolving for the better part of 30 years. To identify health status and QoL instruments and review them against rigorous criteria as a precursor to creating an instrument library for later dissemination, the Medical Outcomes Trust in 1994 created an independently functioning Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). In the mid-1990s, the SAC defined a set of attributes and criteria to carry out instrument assessments; 5 years later, it updated and revised these materials to take account of the expanding theories and technologies upon which such instruments were being developed. This paper offers the SAC's current conceptualization of eight key attributes of health status and QoL instruments (i.e., conceptual and measurement model; reliability; validity; responsiveness; interpretability; respondent and administrative burden; alternate forms; and cultural and language adaptations) and the criteria by which instruments would be reviewed on each of those attributes. These are suggested guidelines for the field to consider and debate; as measurement techniques become both more familiar and more sophisticated, we expect that experts will wish to update and refine these criteria accordingly.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12074258     DOI: 10.1023/a:1015291021312

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  6 in total

Review 1.  Health outcomes methodology symposium: summary and recommendations.

Authors:  K N Lohr
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  The Danish SF-36 Health Survey: translation and preliminary validity studies.

Authors:  J B Bjorner; K Thunedborg; T S Kristensen; J Modvig; P Bech
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36.

Authors:  J B Bjorner; S Kreiner; J E Ware; M T Damsgaard; P Bech
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.

Authors:  Steven P Reise; Keith F Widaman; Robin H Pugh
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

Authors:  C A McHorney; A R Tarlov
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.147

  6 in total
  612 in total

Review 1.  ASCPRO recommendations for the assessment of fatigue as an outcome in clinical trials.

Authors:  Andrea M Barsevick; Charles S Cleeland; Donald C Manning; Ann M O'Mara; Bryce B Reeve; Jane A Scott; Jeff A Sloan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Translating the Short-Form Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) in 27 countries: methodological and conceptual issues.

Authors:  B Gandek; J Alacoque; V Uzun; M Andrew-Hobbs; K Davis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire.

Authors:  Petra M Boynton; Trisha Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-29

Review 4.  Measures of the recovery orientation of mental health services: systematic review.

Authors:  J Williams; M Leamy; V Bird; C Harding; J Larsen; C Le Boutillier; L Oades; M Slade
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 4.328

5.  What sample sizes for reliability and validity studies in neurology?

Authors:  Jeremy C Hobart; Stefan J Cano; Thomas T Warner; Alan J Thompson
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2012-06-24       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Caregivers' agreement and validity of indirect functional analysis: a cross cultural evaluation across multiple problem behavior topographies.

Authors:  Javier Virues-Ortega; David Segui-Duran; Alberto Descalzo-Quero; Jose Julio Carnerero; Neil Martin
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2011-01

7.  Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey.

Authors:  Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Physical activity questionnaires for youth: a systematic review of measurement properties.

Authors:  Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 11.136

9.  Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks.

Authors:  William T Riley; Nan Rothrock; Bonnie Bruce; Christopher Christodolou; Karon Cook; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Understanding the need for assistance with survey completion in people with Huntington disease.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Hahn; Nancy R Downing; Julie C Stout; Jane S Paulsen; Becky Ready; Siera Goodnight; Jin-Shei Lai; Jennifer A Miner; Noelle E Carlozzi
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.