Michael C Edwards1,2, Ashley Slagle3, Jonathan D Rubright4, R J Wirth5. 1. Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA. mcedwards@asu.edu. 2. Vector Psychometric Group, LLC, 847 Emily Lane, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516, USA. mcedwards@asu.edu. 3. Aspen Consulting, LLC, 619 S 11th St, Philadelphia, PA, 19147, USA. 4. National Board of Medical Examiners, 3750 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 5. Vector Psychometric Group, LLC, 847 Emily Lane, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as part of its regulatory mission, is charged with determining whether a clinical outcome assessment (COA) is "fit for purpose" when used in clinical trials to support drug approval and product labeling. In this paper, we will provide a review (and some commentary) on the current state of affairs in COA development/evaluation/use with a focus on one aspect: How do you know you are measuring the right thing? In the psychometric literature, this concept is referred to broadly as validity and has itself evolved over many years of research and application. REVIEW: After a brief introduction, the first section will review current ideas about "fit for purpose" and how it has been viewed by FDA. This section will also describe some of the unique challenges to COA development/evaluation/use in the clinical trials space. Following this, we provide an overview of modern validity theory as it is currently understood in the psychometric tradition. This overview will focus primarily on the perspective of validity theorists such as Messick and Kane whose work forms the backbone for the bulk of high-stakes assessment in areas such as education, psychology, and health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We situate the concept of fit for purpose within the broader context of validity. By comparing and contrasting the approaches and the situations where they have traditionally been applied, we identify areas of conceptual overlap as well as areas where more discussion and research are needed.
PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as part of its regulatory mission, is charged with determining whether a clinical outcome assessment (COA) is "fit for purpose" when used in clinical trials to support drug approval and product labeling. In this paper, we will provide a review (and some commentary) on the current state of affairs in COA development/evaluation/use with a focus on one aspect: How do you know you are measuring the right thing? In the psychometric literature, this concept is referred to broadly as validity and has itself evolved over many years of research and application. REVIEW: After a brief introduction, the first section will review current ideas about "fit for purpose" and how it has been viewed by FDA. This section will also describe some of the unique challenges to COA development/evaluation/use in the clinical trials space. Following this, we provide an overview of modern validity theory as it is currently understood in the psychometric tradition. This overview will focus primarily on the perspective of validity theorists such as Messick and Kane whose work forms the backbone for the bulk of high-stakes assessment in areas such as education, psychology, and health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We situate the concept of fit for purpose within the broader context of validity. By comparing and contrasting the approaches and the situations where they have traditionally been applied, we identify areas of conceptual overlap as well as areas where more discussion and research are needed.
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Vishal Bhatnagar; Stacie Hudgens; Elisabeth Piault-Louis; Lee Jones; Julia A Beaver; H Kim Lyerly; Gregory Reaman; Thomas Fleming; Paul G Kluetz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Theresa M Coles; Adrian F Hernandez; Bryce B Reeve; Karon Cook; Michael C Edwards; Marc Boutin; Elizabeth Bush; Arnold Degboe; Lothar Roessig; Amy Rudolph; Pauline McNulty; Nikunj Patel; Trish Kay-Mugford; Margaret Vernon; Michael Woloschak; Gustavo Buchele; John A Spertus; Matthew T Roe; Denise Bury; Kevin Weinfurt Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-06-13 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Michael E Hyland; Joseph W Lanario; Jill Pooler; Matthew Masoli; Rupert C Jones Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-01-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Richard Sawatzky; Jae-Yung Kwon; Ruth Barclay; Cynthia Chauhan; Lori Frank; Wilbert B van den Hout; Lene Kongsgaard Nielsen; Sandra Nolte; Mirjam A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 4.147