PURPOSE: Pretesting is key in the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We describe a mixed-methods approach based on interviews and Rasch measurement methods in the pretesting of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument. METHODS: We used cognitive interviews to pretest the PU-QOL in 35 patients with pressure ulcers with the view to identifying problematic items, followed by Rasch analysis to examine response options, appropriateness of the item series and biases due to question ordering (item fit). We then compared findings in an interactive and iterative process to identify potential strengths and weaknesses of PU-QOL items, and guide decision-making about further revisions to items and design/layout. RESULTS: Although cognitive interviews largely supported items, they highlighted problems with layout, response options and comprehension. Findings from the Rasch analysis identified problems with response options through reversed thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mixed-methods approach in pretesting the PU-QOL instrument proved beneficial for identifying problems with scale layout, response options and framing/wording of items. Rasch measurement methods are a useful addition to standard qualitative pretesting for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of early stage PRO instruments.
PURPOSE: Pretesting is key in the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We describe a mixed-methods approach based on interviews and Rasch measurement methods in the pretesting of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument. METHODS: We used cognitive interviews to pretest the PU-QOL in 35 patients with pressure ulcers with the view to identifying problematic items, followed by Rasch analysis to examine response options, appropriateness of the item series and biases due to question ordering (item fit). We then compared findings in an interactive and iterative process to identify potential strengths and weaknesses of PU-QOL items, and guide decision-making about further revisions to items and design/layout. RESULTS: Although cognitive interviews largely supported items, they highlighted problems with layout, response options and comprehension. Findings from the Rasch analysis identified problems with response options through reversed thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mixed-methods approach in pretesting the PU-QOL instrument proved beneficial for identifying problems with scale layout, response options and framing/wording of items. Rasch measurement methods are a useful addition to standard qualitative pretesting for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of early stage PRO instruments.
Authors: Claudia Gorecki; Donna L Lamping; Julia M Brown; Anna Madill; Jill Firth; Jane Nixon Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Claudia Gorecki; Julia M Brown; E Andrea Nelson; Michelle Briggs; Lisette Schoonhoven; Carol Dealey; Tom Defloor; Jane Nixon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: J C Hobart; A Riazi; A J Thompson; I M Styles; W Ingram; P J Vickery; M Warner; P J Fox; J P Zajicek Journal: Brain Date: 2005-11-09 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: S Coleman; J Nixon; J Keen; D Muir; L Wilson; E McGinnis; N Stubbs; C Dealey; E A Nelson Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Claudia Gorecki; Julia M Brown; Stefan Cano; Donna L Lamping; Michelle Briggs; Susanne Coleman; Carol Dealey; Elizabeth McGinnis; Andrea E Nelson; Nikki Stubbs; Lyn Wilson; Jane Nixon Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Jane Nixon; Julia M Brown; Donna L Lamping; Stefan J Cano Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.615