PURPOSE: Establishing content validity for both new and existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is central to a scientifically sound instrument development process. Methodological and logistical issues present a challenge in regard to determining the best practices for establishing content validity. METHODS: This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding qualitative research to establish content validity based on the scientific methodological literature and authors' experience. RESULTS: Conceptual issues and frameworks for qualitative interview research, developing the interview discussion guide, reaching saturation, analysis of data, developing a theoretical model, item generation and cognitive debriefing are presented. Suggestions are offered for dealing with logistical issues regarding facilitator qualifications, ethics approval, sample recruitment, group logistics, taping and transcribing interviews, honoraria and documenting content validity. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped this paper will stimulate further discussion regarding best practices for establishing content validity so that, as the PRO field moves forward, qualitative research can be evaluated for quality and acceptability according to scientifically established principles.
PURPOSE: Establishing content validity for both new and existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is central to a scientifically sound instrument development process. Methodological and logistical issues present a challenge in regard to determining the best practices for establishing content validity. METHODS: This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding qualitative research to establish content validity based on the scientific methodological literature and authors' experience. RESULTS: Conceptual issues and frameworks for qualitative interview research, developing the interview discussion guide, reaching saturation, analysis of data, developing a theoretical model, item generation and cognitive debriefing are presented. Suggestions are offered for dealing with logistical issues regarding facilitator qualifications, ethics approval, sample recruitment, group logistics, taping and transcribing interviews, honoraria and documenting content validity. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped this paper will stimulate further discussion regarding best practices for establishing content validity so that, as the PRO field moves forward, qualitative research can be evaluated for quality and acceptability according to scientifically established principles.
Authors: Nicolien F Wieringa; Jules L Peschar; Petra Denig; Pieter A de Graeff; Rein Vos Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Margaret L Rothman; Philippe Beltran; Joseph C Cappelleri; Joseph Lipscomb; Bonnie Teschendorf Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Muirne C S Paap; Christina Bode; Lonneke I M Lenferink; Caroline B Terwee; Job van der Palen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 4.147
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
Authors: Y S Castañeda; C S Cheng-Patel; D A Leske; S M Wernimont; S R Hatt; L Liebermann; E E Birch; J M Holmes Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Sarah A Collins; Suzanne Bakken; David K Vawdrey; Enrico Coiera; Leanne Currie Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Katherine A Kitchen; Christine L McKibbin; Thomas L Wykes; Aaron A Lee; Catherine P Carrico; Katelynn A McConnell Journal: Clin Gerontol Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.619
Authors: Loretta A Williams; Sonika Agarwal; Diane C Bodurka; Angele K Saleeba; Charlotte C Sun; Charles S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 3.612