Psychometric validation of PROM instruments. Article four in a series of ten

被引:31
作者
Christensen, Karl B. [1 ]
Comins, Jonathan D. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Krogsgaard, Michael R. [2 ]
Brodersen, John [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Jensen, Jonas [2 ]
Hansen, Christian Fugl [2 ]
Kreiner, Svend [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, Sect Biostat, Dept Publ Hlth, Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg Hosp, Sect Sports Traumatol M51, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Publ Hlth, Res Unit Gen Practice, Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Publ Hlth, Sect Gen Practice, Copenhagen, Denmark
[5] Primary Hlth Care Res Unit, Region Zealand, Denmark
关键词
classical test theory; confirmatory factor analyses; construct validity; differential item functioning; modern test theory; patient-reported outcome measures; psychometric validation; Rasch analyses; OUTCOME SCORE KOOS; RASCH MODEL; KNEE INJURY; STATISTICS; INDEXES; ALPHA; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/sms.13908
中图分类号
G8 [体育];
学科分类号
04 ; 0403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1225 / 1238
页数:14
相关论文
共 79 条
[61]  
Orlando M, 2000, APPL PSYCH MEAS, V24, P48
[62]   Validation and assessment of minimally clinically important difference of the unadjusted Health Assessment Questionnaire in a Danish cohort: uncovering ordinal bias [J].
Ornbjerg, L. M. ;
Christensen, K. B. ;
Tennant, A. ;
Hetland, M. L. .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2020, 49 (01) :1-7
[63]   Responsiveness: is it time to move beyond ordinal scores and approach interval measurements? [J].
Piscitelli, Daniele ;
Pellicciari, Leonardo .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2018, 32 (10) :1426-1427
[64]  
Rasch G., 1960, PROBABILISTIC MODELS
[65]   PARAMETER RECOVERY IN THE GRADED RESPONSE MODEL USING MULTILOG [J].
REISE, SP ;
YU, JY .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, 1990, 27 (02) :133-144
[66]  
Rizopoulos D, 2006, J STAT SOFTW, V17
[67]  
Roelstraete B, 2011, J STAT SOFTW, V44, P1
[68]   Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) - Development of a self-administered outcome measure [J].
Roos, EM ;
Roos, HP ;
Lohmander, LS ;
Ekdahl, C ;
Beynnon, BD .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY, 1998, 28 (02) :88-96
[69]   CRITERION-RELATED CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY [J].
ROSENBAUM, PR .
PSYCHOMETRIKA, 1989, 54 (04) :625-633
[70]   lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling [J].
Rosseel, Yves .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL SOFTWARE, 2012, 48 (02) :1-36