Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

26-04-2022

Establishing content validity of LIMB-Q Kids: a new patient-reported outcome measure for lower limb deformities

Auteurs: Harpreet Chhina, Anne Klassen, David Bade, Jacek Kopec, Anthony Cooper

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2022

Abstract

Purpose

To establish the content validity of LIMB-Q Kids, a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for children with lower limb deformities. This study focused on three key components of content validity, i.e., comprehension, comprehensiveness, and relevance.

Methods

Cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) with children with lower limb deformities were performed, and expert input from parents and clinicians directly involved in the care of children with lower limb deformities was obtained. CDIs were conducted with children from sites in Australia, Canada, and the USA. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analyses were conducted using the reparative approach, which involved close examination of the transcribed interviews and summarising edits after each interview.

Results

Forty patients, experts, and parents reviewed LIMB-Q Kids and provided feedback. At the start, LIMB-Q Kids had 10 scales and 124 total items. Five rounds of input was obtained from children, parents, and experts. Overall, 37 new items were added. Thirty-three of the new items were included to measure symptoms experienced in different parts of the legs. Final version of LIMB-Q Kids had 11 scales and 159 items.

Conclusion

This study established content validity of the LIMB-Q Kids, a new PROM for children with lower limb deformities. An international field-test study is underway. Translation and cultural adaptation are underway for sites where English is not the first language. Scoring algorithms will be developed, following which the scale could be used to inform clinical practice and research.

vorige artikel Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test–retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation

volgende artikel Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Wilson, G. N. (1998). In H. Ja & J. Birch (Eds.), Heritable limb deficiencies (pp. 39–51). American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Walker, J. L., Knapp, D., Minter, C., Boakes, J. L., Salazar, J. C., Sanders, J. O., et al. (2009). Adult outcomes following amputation or lengthening for fibular deficiency. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery A, 91(4), 797–804.CrossRef

Birch, J. G., Paley, D., Herzenberg, J. E., Morton, A., Ward, S., Riddle, R., et al. (2019). Amputation versus staged reconstruction for severe fibular hemimelia. JBJS Open Access, 4(2), e0053.CrossRef

Elmherig, A., Ahmed, A. F., Hegazy, A., Herzenberg, J. E., Ibrahim, T., & Ibrahim, T. (2020). amputation versus limb reconstruction for fibula hemimelia: A meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 40(8), 425–430.CrossRef

Montpetit, K., Hamdy, R. C., Dahan-oliel, N., Zhang, X., & Narayanan, U. G. (2009). Measurement of health-related quality of life in children undergoing external fixator treatment for lower limb deformities. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 29(8), 920–926.CrossRef

Hrutkay, J. M., & Eilert, R. E. (1990). Operative lengthening of the lower extremity and associated psychological aspects: The children’s hospital experience. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 10, 373–377.CrossRef

Cadman, D., Boyle, M., Szatmari, P., & Offord, D. R. (1987). Chronic illness, disability, and mental and social well-being: Findings of the Ontario child health study. Pediatrics, 79(5), 805–813.CrossRef

Chhina, H., Klassen, A., Kopec, J., Park, S., Fortes, C., & Cooper, A. (2017). Quality of life of children with lower limb deformities: A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes and development of a preliminary conceptual framework. Journal of Limb Lengthening & Reconstruction, 3(1), 19–29.CrossRef

Chhina, H., Klassen, A., Kopec, J. A., Oliffe, J., & Cooper, A. (2019). International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a patient-reported outcome instrument for children and adolescents with lower limb deformities. British Medical Journal Open, 9(5), 1–8.

10.

Chhina, H., Klassen, A. F., Kopec, J. A., Oliffe, J., Iobst, C., Dahan-Oliel, N., et al. (2021). What matters to children with lower limb deformities: An international qualitative study guiding the development of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00299-wCrossRef

11.

Borgers, N., Hox, J., & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity, 38(1), 17–33.CrossRef

12.

Borgers, N., & Hox, J. J. (2000). Reliability of responses in questionnaire research with children. In Fifth international conference on logic and methodology. Germany.

13.

Klassen, A. F., Riff, K. W. Y. W., Longmire, N. M., Albert, A., Allen, G. C., Aydin, M. A., et al. (2018). Psychometric findings and normative values for the CLEFT-Q based on 2434 children and young adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate from 12 countries. CMAJ, 190(15), E455–E462.CrossRef

14.

Wong Riff, K. W. Y., Tsangaris, E., Goodacre, T. E. E., Forrest, C. R., Lawson, J., Pusic, A. L., et al. (2018). What matters to patients with cleft lip and/or palate: An international qualitative study informing the development of the CLEFT-Q. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 55(3), 442–450.CrossRef

15.

Doak, C. C., & Doak, L. G. R. J. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills. Lippincott.CrossRef

16.

Weiss, B., & Coyne, C. (1997). Communicating with patients who cannot read. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(4), 272–274.CrossRef

17.

Jensen, S. A., Fabiano, G. A., Lopez-Williams, A., & Chacko, A. (2006). The reading grade level of common measures in child and adolescent clinical psychology. Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 346–352.CrossRef

18.

Khadka, J., Gothwal, V. K., Mcalinden, C., Lamoureux, E. L., & Pesudovs, K. (2012). The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10(80), 1.

19.

U.S Food and Drug Administration. (2009). U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims, (vol. 2014). Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.

20.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, (vol. 4, issue 79).

21.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Heal., 14(8), 978–988.CrossRef

23.

Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health, 14(8), 967–977.CrossRef

24.

Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., et al. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1159–1170.CrossRef

25.

Bevans, K., Riley, A., Moon, J., & Forrest, C. (2010). Conceptual and methodological advances in children reported outcomes measurement. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(4), 385–396.CrossRef

26.

Irwin, D. E., Varni, J. W., Yeatts, K., & Dewalt, D. A. (2009). Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: A patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Stewart, J. L., Lynn, M. R., & Mishel, M. H. (2005). Evaluating content validity for children’s self-report instruments using children as content experts. Nursing Research, 54(6), 414–418.CrossRef

28.

Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.CrossRef

29.

Willis, G. B. (2015). Analysis of the cognitive interview in questionnaire design: Understanding qualitative research (pp. 1–275). Oxford University Press.

30.

Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1263–1278.CrossRef

31.

Willis, G. B., DeMaio, T. J., & Harris-Kojetin, B. (1999). Is the Bandwagon headed to the methodological promised land? Evaluating the validity of cognitive interviewing techniques. In M. G. Sirken, D. J. Herrmann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J. M. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition and survey research (pp. 133–153). Wiley.

32.

Pruitt, S. D., Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Setoguchi, Y. (1997). Prosthesis satisfaction outcome measurement in pediatric limb deficiency. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(7), 750–754.CrossRef

33.

Griffiths, A. L., Donnan, L. T., Iobst, C. A., Kelley, S. P., Bouchard, M., & Narayanan, U. G. (2021). The gait outcomes assessment list for children with lower limb difference (GOAL-LD): Assessment of reliability and validity. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 41(7), 450–456.

34.

Fabricant, P., Borst, E., Green, S., Marx, R., Fragomen, A., & Rozbruch, S. R. (2016). Validation of a modified Scoliosis Research Society instrument for patients with limb deformity: The limb deformity-Scoliosis Research Society (LD-SRS) score. Journal of Limb Lengthening & Reconstruction, 2(2), 86–93.CrossRef

35.

Heath, M. R., Shin, T. J., Mehta, R., Principe, P. S., & Rozbruch, S. R. (2021). Patients with lower limb deformity report worse quality of life than control subjects regardless of degree of deformity. JAAOS Global Research & Review, 5(8), 1–6.CrossRef

36.

Galal, S., Shin, J., Principe, P., Khabyeh-Hasbani, N., Mehta, R., Hamilton, A., et al. (2021). STRYDE versus PRECICE magnetic internal lengthening nail for femur lengthening. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03943-8CrossRefPubMed

37.

Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRef

38.

Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). A review of measures of quality of life for children with chronic illness. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 84(3), 205–211.CrossRef

Titel: Establishing content validity of LIMB-Q Kids: a new patient-reported outcome measure for lower limb deformities
Auteurs: Harpreet Chhina
Anne Klassen
David Bade
Jacek Kopec
Anthony Cooper
Publicatiedatum: 26-04-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03140-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2022

Identifying health-related quality of life cut-off scores that indicate the need for supportive care in young adults with cancer

Quality of mobility measures among individuals with acquired brain injury: an umbrella review

A comparison of health-related quality of life and personal, social, and environmental factors of older adults according to a residential area: a propensity score matching analysis

Associations of Mediterranean diet with psychological ill-being and well-being throughout the pregnancy course: The GESTAFIT project

Estimating the EQ-5D-5L value set for the Philippines

Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test–retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation