Choosing the most adequate PROM for a study is a non‐trivial process. The aim of this study was to provide a catalogue with analyses of content and construct validity of PROMs relevant to research in sports science, including all published local translations. The most commonly used PROMs in sports research were selected from a PubMed search “patient reported outcome measures sports”, identifying 439 articles and 194 different PROMs. Articles describing development of the 61 selected PROMs were assessed for content validity, and all articles regarding construct validity of each PROM and all published translations (in total 622 articles) were analyzed. A catalogue with assessments of the 61 PROMs was produced. The majority were of inferior validity, with few exceptions. The most common reason for this was that the PROM had not been developed by methods that ensure high content validity. Another major reason for inferior validity was that construct validity had not been secured by adequate statistical methods. In conclusion, this catalogue provides a tool for researchers to facilitate choosing the most valid PROM for studies in sports research. Furthermore, it shows for popular PROMs where further validation is needed, and for fields in musculoskeletal medicine where valid PROMs are lacking. It is suggested that a targeted effort is made to develop valid PROMs for major conditions in musculoskeletal research. The current method is easier to practice compared with assessment after COSMIN guidelines.

The aim was to provide an overview of the different statistical methods for validation of patient-reported outcome measures, ranging from simple statistical methods available in all software packages to advanced statistical models that require specialized software. A non-technical summary of classical test theory (CTT) and modern test theory (MTT) is provided. Specifically, confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and Rasch analysis is outlined. One CTT and three MTT methods were used to validate the two subscales (Symptoms and Quality of Life) from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). For each methodology, two analyses were considered: (i) a unidimensional analysis ignoring the pre-specified dimensionality, and (ii) a two-dimensional analysis using the pre-specified dimensionality.While CTT did not adequately address central issues regarding the validity of the KOOS subscales, the three MTT methods yielded very similar results. In conclusion, MTT methods offer analysis of all relevant properties related to the validity of patient-reported outcome measures, while this is not the case for CTT. Claims about sufficient validity based on CTT methods are inadequate and should not be trusted. K E Y W O R D Sclassical test theory, confirmatory factor analyses, construct validity, differential item functioning, modern test theory, patient-reported outcome measures, psychometric validation, Rasch analyses | 1227Since E is assumed to be identically distributed for all persons and independent of TS and other error scores, it follows that SEM is a general measure of the accuracy of measurement that does not depend on the population and sampling of persons measured by the PROM.

Translating patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) can alter the meaning of items and undermine the PROM's psychometric properties (quantified as cross‐cultural differential item functioning [DIF]). The aim of this paper was to present the theoretical background for PROM translation, adaptation, and cross‐cultural validation, and assess how PROMs used in sports medicine research have been translated and adapted. We also assessed DIF for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) across Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish versions. We conducted a search in PubMed and Scopus to identify the method of translation, adaptation, and validation of PROMs relevant to musculoskeletal research. Additionally, 150 preoperative KOOS questionnaires were obtained from the Scandinavian knee ligament reconstruction registries, and cross‐cultural DIF was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. There were 392 studies identified, describing the translation of 61 PROMs. Ninety‐four percent were performed with forward‐backward technique. Forty‐nine percent used cognitive interviews to ensure appropriate wording, understandability, and adaptation to the target culture. Only two percent were validated according to modern test theory. No study assessed cross‐cultural DIF. One KOOS subscale showed no cross‐cultural DIF, two had DIF with respect to some (but not all) items, and thus conversion tables could be constructed, and two KOOS subscales could not be pooled. Most PROM translations are of undocumented quality, despite the common conclusion that they are valid and reliable. Scores from three of five KOOS subscales can be pooled across the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish versions, but two of these must be adjusted for DIF.

No abstract

Results by patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in musculoskeletal research often influence healthcare strategies. We aimed to evaluate to which extent these RCTs use adequate PROMs, and how this influences the results and conclusions. We identified RCTs of sports research relevance with PROMs as primary outcomes published in 13 preselected journals between January 1, 2008, and November 1, 2019; all journals regularly publish results from musculoskeletal research. Five journals have a high impact factor (>15), and eight with lower impact factors are widely read journals. It was assessed whether the RCTs had used PROMs with high content validity and whether the most adequate PROMs were used (ie, the most well developed and well validated for the patients enrolled in the study). We registered journal impact factor, year of publication, existence of a registered protocol, and whether the study showed significant difference between interventions. A total of 54 RCTs with 56 primary outcomes comprising 26 different PROMs were identified. For 13 RCTs (24%), a protocol was not published. In only 24 of RCTs (44%), the most appropriate PROM had been used as primary outcome, independent of a registered protocol, ranking of the journal, and year of publication. In seven cases, PROMs were used to evaluate a condition that they had not been developed for. RCTs that used the most adequate PROM showed significantly more often (46%) difference in outcomes in contrast to RCTs that used inadequate PROMs (22%) (P = 0.0483). In conclusion, in the majority of RCTs, the most adequate PROM had not been used. Studies, in which the most adequate PROM had been used as outcome, were significantly more likely to show significant difference between interventions. The extent to which protocols were not available was surprisingly high. Journals should request that adequate PROMs are used in RCTs, and if this is not the case that it is discussed how it might influence the results and conclusions. Likewise, it should be requested that a protocol is published or registered.