Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting

被引:0
作者
Susan Magasi
Gery Ryan
Dennis Revicki
William Lenderking
Ron D. Hays
Meryl Brod
Claire Snyder
Maarten Boers
David Cella
机构
[1] Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University,Department of Medical Social Sciences
[2] Rand Corporation,Department of Medicine
[3] United BioSource Corporation,Division of General Internal Medicine
[4] University of California,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
[5] Los Angeles,undefined
[6] The Brod Group,undefined
[7] Johns Hopkins School of Medicine,undefined
[8] Vrije Universiteit (VU) University Medical Center,undefined
来源
Quality of Life Research | 2012年 / 21卷
关键词
PRO development; Content validity; Qualitative research; Quantitative research;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement. Under the auspices of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative, a working meeting on content validity was convened with leading PRO measurement experts. Platform presentations and participant discussion highlighted key issues in the content validity debate, including inconsistency in the definition and evaluation of content validity, the need for empirical research to support methodological approaches to the evaluation of content validity, and concerns that continual re-evaluation of content validity slows the pace of science and leads to the proliferation of study-specific PROs. We advocate an approach to the evaluation of content validity, which includes meticulously documented qualitative and advanced quantitative methods. To advance the science of content validity in PROs, we recommend (1) development of a consensus definition of content validity; (2) development of content validity guidelines that delineate the role of qualitative and quantitative methods and the integration of multiple perspectives; (3) empirical evaluation of generalizability of content validity across applications; and (4) use of generic measures as the foundation for PROs assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:739 / 746
页数:7
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Cella D(2007)The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during the first two years Medical Care 45 S3-S11
[2]  
Yount S(2009)Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience Quality of Life Research 18 1263-1278
[3]  
Rothrock N(2010)PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation Quality of Life Research 19 1087-1096
[4]  
Gershon R(2008)Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note Qualitative Research 8 137-152
[5]  
Cook K(2006)How many interviews are enough? Field Methods 18 59-82
[6]  
Reeve B(2009)Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PROTask force report Value in Health 12 1075-1083
[7]  
Ader D(1998)Reliability and validity of physical and mental health summary scores from the medical outcomes study HIV health survey Medical Care 36 126-137
[8]  
Fries J(2005)Application of structural equation modeling to health outcomes research Evaluation and the Health Professions 28 295-309
[9]  
Bruce B(2008)Analyzing growth and change: Latent variable growth curve modeling with an application to clinical trials Quality of Life Research 17 47-59
[10]  
Rose M(2010)Use of linear growth curve models for assessing the effects of darbepoetin alpha on hemoglobin and fatigue Contemporary Clinical Trials 31 172-179