Literature DB >> 34038901

Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Danilo Carrozzino1, Chiara Patierno1, Jenny Guidi1, Carmen Berrocal Montiel2, Jianxin Cao3, Mary E Charlson4, Kaj Sparle Christensen5, John Concato6,7, Carlos De Las Cuevas8, Jose de Leon9, Ajandek Eöry10, Marcelo Pio Fleck11, Toshi A Furukawa12, Ralph I Horwitz13, Andrew A Nierenberg14,15, Chiara Rafanelli1, Hongxing Wang16,17, Thomas N Wise18,19,20, Nicoletta Sonino21,22, Giovanni A Fava22.   

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are self-rated scales and indices developed to improve the detection of the patients' subjective experience. Given that a considerable number of PROMs are available, it is important to evaluate their validity and usefulness in a specific research or clinical setting. Published guidelines, based on psychometric criteria, do not fit in with the complexity of clinical challenges, because of their quest for homogeneity of components and inadequate attention to sensitivity. Psychometric theory has stifled the field and led to the routine use of scales widely accepted yet with a history of poor performance. Clinimetrics, the science of clinical measurements, may provide a more suitable conceptual and methodological framework. The aims of this paper are to outline the major limitations of the psychometric model and to provide criteria for clinimetric patient-reported outcome measures (CLIPROMs). The characteristics related to reliability, sensitivity, validity, and clinical utility of instruments are critically reviewed, with particular reference to the differences between clinimetric and psychometric approaches. Of note is the fact that PROMs, rating scales, and indices developed according to psychometric criteria may display relevant clinimetric properties. The present paper underpins the importance of the clini-metric methodology in choosing the appropriate PROMs. CLIPROM criteria may also guide the development of new indices and the validation of existing PROMs to be employed in clinical settings.
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment; Clinimetrics; Criteria; Indices; Patient-reported outcome measures; Psychometrics; Rating scales; Sensitivity; Validity

Year:  2021        PMID: 34038901     DOI: 10.1159/000516599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychother Psychosom        ISSN: 0033-3190            Impact factor:   17.659


  19 in total

1.  Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Medication Adherence in Cardiovascular Disease: A COSMIN Systematic Review.

Authors:  Henok G Tegegn; Stuart Wark; Edouard Tursan d'Espaignet; M Joy Spark
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 3.580

2.  Time and gender measurement invariance in the modified Calderon depression scale.

Authors:  Erika Arenas; Graciela Teruel; Pablo Gaitán-Rossi
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 3.077

3.  Anxiety in the Medically Ill: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Sara Romanazzo; Giovanni Mansueto; Fiammetta Cosci
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 5.435

4.  Four-Week Mentalizing Imagery Therapy for Family Dementia Caregivers: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Neural Circuit Changes.

Authors:  Felipe A Jain; Sergey V Chernyak; Lisa D Nickerson; Stefana Morgan; Rhiana Schafer; David Mischoulon; Richard Bernard-Negron; Maren Nyer; Cristina Cusin; Liliana Ramirez Gomez; Albert Yeung
Journal:  Psychother Psychosom       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 25.617

5.  Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Vital Sign for Dermatologic Clinical Care and Clinical Investigations.

Authors:  Aaron M Secrest; Mary-Margaret Chren
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 7.590

6.  Development and measurement properties of the AxEL (attitude toward education and advice for low-back-pain) questionnaire.

Authors:  Edel T O'Hagan; Ian W Skinner; Matthew D Jones; Emma L Karran; Adrian C Traeger; Aidan G Cashin; Benedict M Wand; Siobhan M Schabrun; Sean O'Neill; Ian A Harris; James H McAuley
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 7.  Psychometric analysis of the questionnaires for the assessment of upper limbs available in their Italian version: a systematic review of the structural and psychometric characteristics.

Authors:  Luca Barni; María Ruiz-Muñoz; Manuel Gonzalez-Sanchez; Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas; Jose Merchan-Baeza; Marco Freddolini
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) into Igbo language: a validation study.

Authors:  Ukamaka Gloria Mgbeojedo; Christopher Olusanjo Akosile; Juliet Chidera Ezugwu; Emmanuel Chiebuka Okoye; Jeneviv Nene John; Kenneth Umezulike Ani; Obinna Chinedu Okezue
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Measurement Invariance and Construct Validity of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) in Community Volunteers in Vietnam.

Authors:  Willem A Arrindell; Irene Checa; Begoña Espejo; I-Hua Chen; Danilo Carrozzino; Phuong Vu-Bich; Huong Dambach; Paula Vagos
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  The clinical utility of a comprehensive psychosomatic assessment in the program for colorectal cancer prevention: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Sara Gostoli; Maria Montecchiarini; Alessia Urgese; Francesco Ferrara; Anna Maria Polifemo; Liza Ceroni; Asia Gasparri; Chiara Rafanelli; Vincenzo Cennamo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.