OBJECTIVE: Lack of consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions has led to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant and which concepts they represent. The aim was to clarify and standardize terminology and definitions of measurement properties by reaching consensus among a group of experts and to develop a taxonomy of measurement properties relevant for evaluating health instruments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international Delphi study with four written rounds was performed. Participating experts had a background in epidemiology, statistics, psychology, and clinical medicine. The panel was asked to rate their (dis)agreement about proposals on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel agreed. RESULTS: Of 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate and 43 actually participated. Consensus was reached on positions of measurement properties in the taxonomy (68-84%), terminology (74-88%, except for structural validity [56%]), and definitions of measurement properties (68-88%). The panel extensively discussed the positions of internal consistency and responsiveness in the taxonomy, the terms "reliability" and "structural validity," and the definitions of internal consistency and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties was reached. Hopefully, this will lead to a more uniform use of terms and definitions in the literature on measurement properties. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Lack of consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions has led to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant and which concepts they represent. The aim was to clarify and standardize terminology and definitions of measurement properties by reaching consensus among a group of experts and to develop a taxonomy of measurement properties relevant for evaluating health instruments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international Delphi study with four written rounds was performed. Participating experts had a background in epidemiology, statistics, psychology, and clinical medicine. The panel was asked to rate their (dis)agreement about proposals on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel agreed. RESULTS: Of 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate and 43 actually participated. Consensus was reached on positions of measurement properties in the taxonomy (68-84%), terminology (74-88%, except for structural validity [56%]), and definitions of measurement properties (68-88%). The panel extensively discussed the positions of internal consistency and responsiveness in the taxonomy, the terms "reliability" and "structural validity," and the definitions of internal consistency and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties was reached. Hopefully, this will lead to a more uniform use of terms and definitions in the literature on measurement properties. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Willem van Mechelen; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Florence C M Reith; Ruben Van den Brande; Anneliese Synnot; Russell Gruen; Andrew I R Maas Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wan Ling Lee; Karuthan Chinna; Awang Bulgiba; Khatijah Lim Abdullah; Imran Zainal Abidin; Stefan Höfer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sarinnapha M Vasunilashorn; Dena Schulman-Green; Douglas Tommet; Tamara G Fong; Tammy T Hshieh; Edward R Marcantonio; Eran D Metzger; Eva M Schmitt; Patricia A Tabloski; Thomas G Travison; Yun Gou; Benjamin Helfand; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.959