Richard Sawatzky1, Eric K H Chan2, Bruno D Zumbo3, Sara Ahmed4, Susan J Bartlett5, Clifton O Bingham6, William Gardner7, Jeffrey Jutai8, Ayse Kuspinar9, Tolulope Sajobi10, Lisa M Lix11. 1. School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: Rick.Sawatzky@twu.ca. 2. School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada; Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology (MERM) Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 3. Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology (MERM) Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 4. School of Physical & Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University/McGill University Health Center (RVH), 687 Pine Avenue West, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1A1; Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en readaptation (CRIR), Montreal, Quebec. 5. Department of Medicine, McGill University/McGill University Health Center (RVH), 687 Pine Avenue West, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1A1; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 5200 Eastern Avenue #4100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 6. Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 5200 Eastern Avenue #4100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 7. University of Ottawa, Ontario, Ottawa, Canada; Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ontario, Ottawa, Canada. 8. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 9. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 10. Department of Community Health Sciences & O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 11. Department of Community Health Sciences, S113-750 Bannatyne Avenue, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obtaining the patient's view about the outcome of care is an essential component of patient-centered care. Many patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for different purposes have been developed since the 1960s. Measurement validation is fundamental in the development, evaluation, and use of PRO instruments. OBJECTIVES: This paper provides a review of modern perspectives of measurement validation in relation to the followings three questions as applied to PROs: (1) What evidence is needed to warrant comparisons between groups and individuals? (2) What evidence is needed to warrant comparisons over time? and (3) What are the value implications, including personal and societal consequences, of using PRO scores? DISCUSSION: Measurement validation is an ongoing process that involves the accumulation of evidence regarding the justification of inferences, actions, and decisions based on measurement scores. These include inferences pertaining to comparisons between groups and comparisons over time as well as consideration of value implications of using PRO scores. Personal and societal consequences must be examined as part of a comprehensive approach to measurement validation. The answers to these three questions are fundamental to the the validity of different types of inferences, actions, and decisions made on PRO scores in health research, health care administration, and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Obtaining the patient's view about the outcome of care is an essential component of patient-centered care. Many patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for different purposes have been developed since the 1960s. Measurement validation is fundamental in the development, evaluation, and use of PRO instruments. OBJECTIVES: This paper provides a review of modern perspectives of measurement validation in relation to the followings three questions as applied to PROs: (1) What evidence is needed to warrant comparisons between groups and individuals? (2) What evidence is needed to warrant comparisons over time? and (3) What are the value implications, including personal and societal consequences, of using PRO scores? DISCUSSION: Measurement validation is an ongoing process that involves the accumulation of evidence regarding the justification of inferences, actions, and decisions based on measurement scores. These include inferences pertaining to comparisons between groups and comparisons over time as well as consideration of value implications of using PRO scores. Personal and societal consequences must be examined as part of a comprehensive approach to measurement validation. The answers to these three questions are fundamental to the the validity of different types of inferences, actions, and decisions made on PRO scores in health research, health care administration, and clinical practice.
Authors: Aynslie M Hinds; Tolulope T Sajobi; Véronique Sebille; Richard Sawatzky; Lisa M Lix Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Richard Sawatzky; Lara B Russell; Tolulope T Sajobi; Lisa M Lix; Jacek Kopec; Bruno D Zumbo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.147