Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2021

25-02-2021 | Commentary

Constructing arguments for the interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures in research: an application of modern validity theory

Auteur: Kevin P. Weinfurt

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

The past 100 years have witnessed an evolution of the meaning of validity and validation within the fields of education and psychology. Validity was once viewed as a property of tests and scales, but is now viewed as the extent to which theory and evidence support proposed interpretations and uses of test scores. Uncertainty about what types of validity evidence were needed motivated the current “argument-based” approach, as reflected in the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. According to this approach, investigators should delineate the assumptions required in order for a proposed interpretation or use to be plausible and then seek evidence that supports or refutes those assumptions. Though validation practices within the field of patient-reported outcome measurement have implicitly included many elements of the argument-based approach, the approach has yet to be explicitly adopted. To facilitate adoption, this article proposes an initial set of assumptions that might be included in most arguments for research-related interpretations and uses of scores from patient-reported outcome measures. The article also includes brief descriptions of the types of evidence that would be best suited for evaluating each assumption. It is hoped that these generic assumptions will stimulate further discussion and debate among quality of life researchers regarding how best to adopt modern validity theory to patient-reported outcome measures.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Zumbo, B. C. E. (2014). Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences social indicators research series. Cham: Springer. Zumbo, B. C. E. (2014). Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences social indicators research series. Cham: Springer.
4.
go back to reference Association, A. E. R., Association, A. P., & Education, N. C. o. M. i. Standards for educational and psychological testing (American Educational Research Association): American Educational Research Association. Association, A. E. R., Association, A. P., & Education, N. C. o. M. i. Standards for educational and psychological testing (American Educational Research Association): American Educational Research Association.
8.
10.
go back to reference Walton, M. K., Powers, J. H., Hobart, J., Patrick, D., Marquis, P., Vamvakas, S., et al. (2015). Clinical outcome assessments: Conceptual foundation—report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment—emerging good practices for outcomes research task force. Value in Health, 18, 741–752. CrossRef Walton, M. K., Powers, J. H., Hobart, J., Patrick, D., Marquis, P., Vamvakas, S., et al. (2015). Clinical outcome assessments: Conceptual foundation—report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment—emerging good practices for outcomes research task force. Value in Health, 18, 741–752. CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Weinfurt, K. P. (2019). Viewing assessments of patient-reported heath status as conversations: Implications for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research : An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 13(1), 1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-019-02285-8. CrossRef Weinfurt, K. P. (2019). Viewing assessments of patient-reported heath status as conversations: Implications for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research : An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 13(1), 1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-019-02285-8. CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossRef Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Willis, G. B. (2015). Analysis of the cognitive interview in questionnaire design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, G. B. (2015). Analysis of the cognitive interview in questionnaire design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
go back to reference Byrom, B., Gwaltney, C., Slagle, A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Muehlhausen, W. (2019). Measurement equivalence of patient-reported outcome measures migrated to electronic formats: A review of evidence and recommendations for clinical trials and bring your own device. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 53(4), 426–430. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2168479018793369​. CrossRef Byrom, B., Gwaltney, C., Slagle, A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Muehlhausen, W. (2019). Measurement equivalence of patient-reported outcome measures migrated to electronic formats: A review of evidence and recommendations for clinical trials and bring your own device. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 53(4), 426–430. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2168479018793369​. CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2016). Quality of life (3rd ed.). Blackwell: Wiley. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2016). Quality of life (3rd ed.). Blackwell: Wiley.
21.
go back to reference Gobo, G., & Mauceri, S. (2014). Constructing survey data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gobo, G., & Mauceri, S. (2014). Constructing survey data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Metagegevens
Titel
Constructing arguments for the interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures in research: an application of modern validity theory
Auteur
Kevin P. Weinfurt
Publicatiedatum
25-02-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02776-7

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2021

Quality of Life Research 6/2021 Naar de uitgave