Myung Sook Park1, Kyung Ja Kang2, Sun Joo Jang3, Joo Yun Lee4, Sun Ju Chang5. 1. Nursing Department, Konkuk University, Chungju, South Korea. Electronic address: elderly1004@hanmail.net. 2. College of Nursing, Jeju National University, Jeju, South Korea. Electronic address: kkyungja@jejunu.ac.kr. 3. College of Nursing, Eulji University, Daejeon, South Korea. Electronic address: icedcoffee@eulji.ac.kr. 4. The Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: jylee3130@gmail.com. 5. College of Nursing & The Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: changsj@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the components of test-retest reliability including time interval, sample size, and statistical methods used in patient-reported outcome measures in older people and to provide suggestions on the methodology for calculating test-retest reliability for patient-reported outcomes in older people. DESIGN: This was a systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from January 1, 2000 to August 10, 2017 by an information specialist. REVIEW METHODS: This systematic review was guided by both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and the guideline for systematic review published by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency in Korea. The methodological quality was assessed by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist box B. RESULTS: Ninety-five out of 12,641 studies were selected for the analysis. The median time interval for test-retest reliability was 14days, and the ratio of sample size for test-retest reliability to the number of items in each measure ranged from 1:1 to 1:4. The most frequently used statistical methods for continuous scores was intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Among the 63 studies that used ICCs, 21 studies presented models for ICC calculations and 30 studies reported 95% confidence intervals of the ICCs. Additional analyses using 17 studies that reported a strong ICC (>0.09) showed that the mean time interval was 12.88days and the mean ratio of the number of items to sample size was 1:5.37. CONCLUSIONS: When researchers plan to assess the test-retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures for older people, they need to consider an adequate time interval of approximately 13days and the sample size of about 5 times the number of items. Particularly, statistical methods should not only be selected based on the types of scores of the patient-reported outcome measures, but should also be described clearly in the studies that report the results of test-retest reliability.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the components of test-retest reliability including time interval, sample size, and statistical methods used in patient-reported outcome measures in older people and to provide suggestions on the methodology for calculating test-retest reliability for patient-reported outcomes in older people. DESIGN: This was a systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from January 1, 2000 to August 10, 2017 by an information specialist. REVIEW METHODS: This systematic review was guided by both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and the guideline for systematic review published by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency in Korea. The methodological quality was assessed by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist box B. RESULTS: Ninety-five out of 12,641 studies were selected for the analysis. The median time interval for test-retest reliability was 14days, and the ratio of sample size for test-retest reliability to the number of items in each measure ranged from 1:1 to 1:4. The most frequently used statistical methods for continuous scores was intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Among the 63 studies that used ICCs, 21 studies presented models for ICC calculations and 30 studies reported 95% confidence intervals of the ICCs. Additional analyses using 17 studies that reported a strong ICC (>0.09) showed that the mean time interval was 12.88days and the mean ratio of the number of items to sample size was 1:5.37. CONCLUSIONS: When researchers plan to assess the test-retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures for older people, they need to consider an adequate time interval of approximately 13days and the sample size of about 5 times the number of items. Particularly, statistical methods should not only be selected based on the types of scores of the patient-reported outcome measures, but should also be described clearly in the studies that report the results of test-retest reliability.
Authors: Martinus M van Veen; Tessa E Bruins; Madina Artan; Tanja Mooibroek-Leeuwerke; Carien H G Beurskens; Paul M N Werker; Pieter U Dijkstra Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 3.186