Literature DB >> 17995479

What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures?

Marlene H Frost1, Bryce B Reeve, Astra M Liepa, Joseph W Stauffer, Ron D Hays.   

Abstract

This article focuses on the necessary psychometric properties of a patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure. Topics include the importance of reliability and validity, psychometric approaches used to provide reliability and validity estimates, the kinds of evidence needed to indicate that a PRO has a sufficient level of reliability and validity, contexts that may affect psychometric properties, methods available to evaluate PRO instruments when the context varies, and types of reliability and validity testing that are appropriate during different phases of clinical trials. Points discussed include the perspective that the psychometric properties of reliability and validity are on a continuum in which the more evidence one has, the greater confidence there is in the value of the PRO data. Construct validity is the type of validity most frequently used with PRO instruments as few "gold standards" exist to allow the use of criterion validity and content validity by itself only provides beginning evidence of validity. Several guidelines are recommended for establishing sufficient evidence of reliability and validity. For clinical trials, a minimum reliability threshold of 0.70 is recommended. Sample sizes for testing should include at least 200 cases and results should be replicated in at least one additional sample. At least one full report on the development of the instrument and one on the use of the instrument are deemed necessary to evaluate the PRO psychometric properties. Psychometric testing ideally occurs before the initiation of Phase III trials. When testing does not occur prior to a Phase III trial, considerable risk is posed in relation to the ability to substantiate the use of the PRO data. Various qualitative (e.g., focus groups, behavioral coding, cognitive interviews) and quantitative approaches (e.g., differential item functioning testing) are useful in evaluating the reliability and validity of PRO instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17995479     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  110 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.  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

3.  Are Single-Item Global Ratings Useful for Assessing Health Status?

Authors:  Cathaleene Macias; Paul B Gold; Dost Öngür; Bruce M Cohen; Trishan Panch
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  2015-10-22

Review 4.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Known-groups validity and responsiveness to change of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS vs. 2.0): a patient-reported measure of treatment burden.

Authors:  David T Eton; Minji K Lee; Jennifer L St Sauver; Roger T Anderson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  A Review of HIV-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Kim Engler; David Lessard; Bertrand Lebouché
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Comparing Measures to Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Authors:  Rebecca Napier; Steven E McNulty; David T Eton; Margaret M Redfield; Omar AbouEzzeddine; Shannon M Dunlay
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 12.035

8.  Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience.

Authors:  Meryl Brod; Laura E Tesler; Torsten L Christensen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-27       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Development and validation of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS): a patient-reported measure of treatment burden.

Authors:  David T Eton; Kathleen J Yost; Jin-Shei Lai; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Jason S Egginton; Jordan K Rosedahl; Mark Linzer; Deborah H Boehm; Azra Thakur; Sara Poplau; Laura Odell; Victor M Montori; Carl R May; Roger T Anderson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Classical test theory and Rasch analysis validation of the Recent-Onset Arthritis Disability questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Authors:  Fausto Salaffi; Franco Franchignoni; Andrea Giordano; Alessandro Ciapetti; Stefania Gasparini; Marcella Ottonello
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 2.980

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.