What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures?

被引:376
|
作者
Frost, Marlene H.
Reeve, Bryce B.
Liepa, Astra M.
Stauffer, Joseph W.
Hays, Ron D.
Sloan, Jeff A.
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Womens Canc Program, Rochester, MN USA
[2] NCI, Div Canc Control & Populat Sci, Outcomes Res Branch, Appl Res Program, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[3] Eli Lilly & Co, Global Hlth Outcomes, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA
[4] Alpharma, Global Med Affairs, Piscataway, NJ USA
[5] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Hlth Sci, Dept Med, UCLA Div Gen Internal Med & Hlth Ser Res, Los Angeles, CA USA
[6] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA USA
关键词
patient-reported outcomes; psychometric; validation;
D O I
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article focuses on the necessary psychometric properties of a patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure. Topics include the importance of reliability and validity, psychometric approaches used to provide reliability and validity estimates, the kinds of evidence needed to indicate that a PRO has a sufficient level of reliability and validity, contexts that may affect psychometric properties, methods available to evaluate PRO instruments when the context varies, and types of reliability and validity testing that are appropriate during different phases of clinical trials. Points discussed include the perspective that the psychometric properties of reliability and validity are on a continuum in which the more evidence one has, the greater confidence there is in the value of the PRO data. Construct validity is the type of validity most frequently used with PRO instruments as few "gold standards" exist to allow the use of criterion validity and content validity by itself only provides beginning evidence of validity. Several guidelines are recommended for establishing sufficient evidence of reliability and validity. For clinical trials, a minimum reliability threshold of 0.70 is recommended. Sample sizes for testing should include at least 200 cases and results should be replicated in at least one additional sample. At least one full report on the development of the instrument and one on the use of the instrument are deemed necessary to evaluate the PRO psychometric properties. Psychometric testing ideally occurs before the initiation of Phase III trials. When testing does not occur prior to a Phase III trial, considerable risk is posed in relation to the ability to substantiate the use of the PRO data. Various qualitative (e.g., focus groups, behavioral coding, cognitive interviews) and quantitative approaches (e.g., differential item functioning testing) are useful in evaluating the reliability and validity of PRO instruments.
引用
收藏
页码:S94 / S105
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedics
    Hansen, Stine Thestrup
    Jensen, Rasmus Stig
    Holm, Henriette Appel
    Liljensoe, Anette
    DANISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 71 (11):
  • [22] Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Endometriosis
    Nicolas-Boluda, Alba
    Oppenheimer, Anne
    Bouaziz, Jerome
    Fauconnier, Arnaud
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (21)
  • [23] Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in wrist osteoarthritis: test–retest reliability and construct validity
    Sara L. Larsson
    Elisabeth Brogren
    Lars B. Dahlin
    Anders Björkman
    Elisabeth Ekstrand
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23
  • [24] Reliability and validity of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
    Deng, Wang
    Shao, Hongyi
    Zhou, Yixin
    Li, Hua
    Wang, Zhaolun
    Huang, Yong
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2022, 108 (08)
  • [25] Scale Linking to Enable Patient-Reported Outcome Performance Measures Assessed with Different Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
    Katzan, Irene L.
    Fan, Youran
    Griffith, Sandra D.
    Crane, Paul K.
    Thompson, Nicolas R.
    Cella, David
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2017, 20 (08) : 1143 - 1149
  • [26] Crosswalking Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: It Matters What, Why, and How
    Krogsgaard, Michael R.
    Comins, Jonathan D.
    Brodersen, John B.
    Christensen, Karl Bang
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2022, 104 (08):
  • [27] Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting
    Susan Magasi
    Gery Ryan
    Dennis Revicki
    William Lenderking
    Ron D. Hays
    Meryl Brod
    Claire Snyder
    Maarten Boers
    David Cella
    Quality of Life Research, 2012, 21 : 739 - 746
  • [28] Response to validity of patient-reported outcome measures in atopic eczema/dermatitis REPLY
    Soyiri, Ireneous N.
    Nwaru, Bright I.
    Sheikh, Aziz
    PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2017, 28 (07) : 700 - 700
  • [29] Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction: Content Validity and
    Oosthuizen, Ilze
    Kumar, Lakshmi Magudilu Srishyla
    Nisha, Kavassery Venkateswaran
    Swanepoel, De Wet
    Granberg, Sarah
    Karlsson, Elin
    Manchaiah, Vinaya
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2023, 66 (10): : 4117 - 4136
  • [30] Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting
    Magasi, Susan
    Ryan, Gery
    Revicki, Dennis
    Lenderking, William
    Hays, Ron D.
    Brod, Meryl
    Snyder, Claire
    Boers, Maarten
    Cella, David
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2012, 21 (05) : 739 - 746