Patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs): how should I interpret reports of measurement properties? A practical guide for clinicians and researchers who are not biostatisticians

被引:67
作者
Davidson, Megan [1 ]
Keating, Jennifer [2 ]
机构
[1] La Trobe Univ, Sch Allied Hlth, Dept Physiotherapy, Melbourne, Vic 3086, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Sch Primary Hlth Care, Dept Physiotherapy, Frankston, Vic, Australia
关键词
Measurement; Evaluation; CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION; VISA-P QUESTIONNAIRE; PATELLAR TENDINOPATHY; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS; RELIABILITY; COSMIN; SCORE; RESPONSIVENESS; TRANSLATION;
D O I
10.1136/bjsports-2012-091704
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
This paper will help clinicians and researchers to understand studies on the validity, responsiveness and reliability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to interpret the scores and change scores derived from these and other types of outcome measures. Validity studies provide a method for assessing whether the underlying construct of interest is adequately assessed. Responsiveness studies explore the longitudinal validity of a test and provide evidence that an instrument can detect change in the construct of interest. Reliability is commonly assessed with correlation indices, which indicate the stability of repeated measurements and the noise' or error in the measurement. Proposed indicators for clinical interpretation of test scores are the minimum clinically important difference, the standard error of measurement and the minimum detectable change. Studies of the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment questionnaire for patellar tendinopathy and other PROMs are used to illustrate concepts.
引用
收藏
页码:792 / 796
页数:5
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Abdel-Moty A R, 1996, Occup Ther Health Care, V10, P3, DOI 10.1080/J003v10n01_02
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2008, HLTH MEASUREMENT SCA, DOI DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199231881.001.0001
  • [3] Beaton D E, 2001, J Hand Ther, V14, P128
  • [4] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310
  • [5] Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods
    Copay, Anne G.
    Subach, Brian R.
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Schuler, Thomas C.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 7 (05) : 541 - 546
  • [6] A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness
    Davidson, M
    Keating, JL
    [J]. PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2002, 82 (01): : 8 - 24
  • [7] Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
    de Vet, Henrica C.
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Ostelo, Raymond W.
    Beckerman, Heleen
    Knol, Dirk L.
    Bouter, Lex M.
    [J]. HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2006, 4 (1)
  • [8] A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: Response patterns in a survey
    Feveile, Helene
    Olsen, Ole
    Hogh, Annie
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2007, 7 (1)
  • [9] Psychometric properties of a Swedish translation of the VISA-P outcome score for patellar tendinopathy -: art. no. 49
    Frohm, A
    Saartok, T
    Edman, G
    Renström, P
    [J]. BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2004, 5 (1)
  • [10] Minimal Clinically Important Difference
    Gatchel, Robert J.
    Lurie, Jon D.
    Mayer, Tom G.
    [J]. SPINE, 2010, 35 (19) : 1739 - 1743