Psychometric validation of PROM instruments

Comins, Jonathan; Krogsgaard, Michael; Brodersen, John; Jensen, Jonas; Hansen, Christian Fugl; Kreiner, Svend

doi:10.1111/sms.13908

Cited by 32 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient-reported outcome measures turn qualitative entities such as anxiety, pain, or social functioning that are not directly observable (also termed "latent constructs") into quantitative scores that can be mathematically processed. 3 This is done by allocating numbers to represent the severity of different conditions. For example, it is better to be able to sleep at night, so patients who sleep through the night despite their health condition will score at one end of a scale, while those who can hardly sleep will score at the opposite end.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a PROM and why do we need it?

Krogsgaard

Brodersen

Siersma

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article was to introduce the reader to the nature of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and pitfalls in their use. PROMs collect subjective information directly from the patient regarding specific or general conditions and add to clinical and functional outcomes, and turn unmeasurable subjective qualities into quantitative measures. PROMs are questionnaires consisting of items: questions or statements with predefined response options. The items in an adequate PROM have been developed by involvement of patients with the condition in focus, and the PROM has been validated for these patients using suitable statistical methods. An adequate well‐targeted PROM is more responsive than an inadequate PROM. Unfortunately, many studies use inadequate PROMs as outcomes. The methods used to generate PROMs should be described as thoroughly as those used to develop any other types of measurement instruments, and the choice of PROM should always be explained and thereby justified. If the PROM used is not adequate, the consequences for the interpretation of the results should be discussed. In many cases, an adequate PROM does not exist. If the best available PROM is chosen, there are methods to validate the adequacy of the chosen PROM, which make an interpretation of the study results possible.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a PROM and why do we need it?

Krogsgaard

Brodersen

Siersma

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Psychometric methods for validation: Modern test theory (MTT) methods were regarded superior to classical test theory (CTT) methods. 18 All IRT methods (eg Rasch analysis) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were rated as equal. • Reliability: This can be assessed using different methods, such as Cronbach's α, test-retest, and Person Separation Index for MTT models.…”

Section: Quality Assessment Of Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) ( The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) (19) Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) (18) International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) (13)…”

Section: Promis-ue (Upper Extremity) (6)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A catalogue of PROMs in sports science: Quality assessment of PROM development and validation

Hansen

Jensen

Siersma

et al. 2021

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The Danish version of the TAS is a patient‐reported instrument, measuring a single response of perceived physical activity level to multiple themes ranging from competitive sports on elite level to work‐related task such as office and craftwork 3 . True patient‐reported outcome measures cannot consist of a single item, why the dimensionality of the TAS may be questioned 17 . The single‐item structure of the TAS may explain why the TAS seems less adequate to evaluate changes over time in a population of patients with different knee disorders.…”

Section: Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…TAS may be questioned. 17 The single-item structure of the TAS may explain why the TAS seems less adequate to evaluate changes over time in a population of patients with different knee disorders. Instead, the TAS may be more appropriate to evaluate changes in a more athletic population.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation, cross‐cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of a Danish version of the Tegner Activity Scale

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) has been used in several Danish studies. However, the TAS has not been cross‐culturally adapted into Danish. We aimed to translate the TAS into Danish and to evaluate its measurement properties in patients with knee disorders. The TAS was translated into Danish following international guidelines. The measurement properties were evaluated in 86 patients (median: 25 years). For reliability, 56 patients completed the scale twice within 9 days. Responsiveness and interpretability were evaluated in 64 patients completing the TAS 6 months later. For reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.7 (CI: 0.6‐0.8), the standard error of measurement was 0.7 points (CI: 0.6‐0.9), the smallest detectable change was 2.1 points (CI: 1.7‐2.5), and the limits of agreement were −1.7‐2.4 points. For responsiveness, the correlation between the TAS change score and the Global Rating of Change Scale was 0.3 (CI: 0.1‐0.5). In patients reporting improved knee condition, 55% reported a TAS change score of minimum 1 point. For interpretability, the minimal clinically important change was 0.7 points (SD: 1.4), and no floor or ceiling effects were found. In conclusion, the Danish version of the TAS has acceptable test‐retest reliability. However, the TAS seems less adequate to evaluate changes over time.

show abstract

Psychometric validation of PROM instruments

Cited by 32 publications

References 62 publications

What is a PROM and why do we need it?

What is a PROM and why do we need it?

A catalogue of PROMs in sports science: Quality assessment of PROM development and validation

Translation, cross‐cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of a Danish version of the Tegner Activity Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About