2011
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-112
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pre-validation methods for developing a patient reported outcome instrument

Abstract: BackgroundMeasures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to the large number of questions asked in Round 1 and in order to cover all relevant TDF domains a systematic data reduction exercise was applied to keep the length of the following rounds manageable. 36 Emphasis was on retaining as much of the original wording and context as possible and care was taken to include minority and majority statements in Round 2. 38 However as in all such Delphi exercises item reduction may result in the loss of some subtleties and nuances contained in Round 1.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Due to the large number of questions asked in Round 1 and in order to cover all relevant TDF domains a systematic data reduction exercise was applied to keep the length of the following rounds manageable. 36 Emphasis was on retaining as much of the original wording and context as possible and care was taken to include minority and majority statements in Round 2. 38 However as in all such Delphi exercises item reduction may result in the loss of some subtleties and nuances contained in Round 1.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Answers to the free-text questions in Round 1 were paraphrased into individual statements by the lead author (YH). Item reduction followed the method described by Prior et al 36 using item de-duplication, item reduction and removal of content overlap. The final list of items were presented in Round 2 and participants were asked to rate their agreement with these statements on a 9-point, Likert scale (as shown in Fig.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…37,38 Prior et al outlined an alternative approach where items in existing instruments are pooled to create instruments with improved content validity. 26 A third solution may be to combine one or more instruments and a final option would be the development of a bespoke instrument, such as the POEM outlined in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The health outcome subcategories were compared to a database of items derived from 20 existing instruments available in the public domain developed in a previous study. 26 The EQ5D can attract a licensing fee, but was included as it has been adopted in the NHS outcomes framework and by NICE. 27 The howRu instrument was included as it was designed specifically for use in routine practice, and despite its brevity has shown good correlation with established generic health status measures, 28 for a total of 22 instruments.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conceptually, our sought measure may be perceived as a form of validity, implicating use of expert rating for assessment. 21 An iterative dialogue was desired, including expert opinion on the relevance and feasibility of the intended intervention protocol.…”
Section: Rationale For Study Protocol Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%