Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To focus attention on the need for rigorous and carefully designed test–retest reliability assessments for new patient-reported outcomes and to encourage retest researchers to be thoughtful, ambitious, and creative in their retest efforts.
The paper outlines key challenges that confront retest researchers, calls attention to some limitations in meeting those challenges, and describes some strategies to improve retest research.
Modest retest coefficients are often reported as acceptable, and many important decisions—such as the retest interval—appear not to be evidence-based. Retest assessments are seldom undertaken before a measure has been finalized, which rules out using retest data to select strong, reproducible items.
Strategies for improving retest research include seeking input from patients or experts regarding the stability of the construct to support decisions about the retest interval, analyzing item-level retest data to identify items to revise or discard, establishing a priori standards of acceptability for reliability coefficients, using large, heterogeneous, and representative retest samples and collecting follow-up data to better understand consistent and inconsistent responses over time.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C., Patrick, D., Alonso, J., Stratford, P., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745. PubMedCrossRef
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and application (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeVet, H. C. W., Terwee, C., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
U. S. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry, patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Polit, D. F., & Yang, F. (2014). Measurement and the measurement of change: A primer for health professionals. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simon, A. E., Forbes, L., Boniface, D., Warburton, F., Brain, K., Dessaix, A., et al. (2012). An international measure of awareness and beliefs about cancer: Development and testing of the ABC. BMJ Open, 2(6). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001758.
Ma, X., Barnes, T. L., Freedman, D., Bell, B., Colabianchi, N., & Liese, A. (2013). Test–retest reliability of a questionnaire measuring perceptions of neighbourhood food environment. Health & Place, 21, 65–69. CrossRef
Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 319–350. CrossRef
Tourangeau, R., Lance, J. R., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polit, D., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 459–467. CrossRef
Nevo, B. (1977). Using item test–retest stability (ITRS) as a criterion for item selection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 847–852. CrossRef
Jones, R. R., & Goldberg, L. R. (1967). Interrelationships among personality scale parameters: Item response stability and scale reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 323–333. CrossRef
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R., Bouter, L. M., & DeVet, H. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651–657. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
- Getting serious about test–retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations
Denise F. Polit
- Springer International Publishing