Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Recently published articles have described criteria to assess qualitative research in the health field in general, but very few articles have delineated qualitative methods to be used in the development of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). In fact, how PROs are developed with subject input through focus groups and interviews has been given relatively short shrift in the PRO literature when compared to the plethora of quantitative articles on the psychometric properties of PROs. If documented at all, most PRO validation articles give little for the reader to evaluate the content validity of the measures and the credibility and trustworthiness of the methods used to develop them. Increasingly, however, scientists and authorities want to be assured that PRO items and scales have meaning and relevance to subjects. This article was developed by an international, interdisciplinary group of psychologists, psychometricians, regulatory experts, a physician, and a sociologist. It presents rigorous and appropriate qualitative research methods for developing PROs with content validity. The approach described combines an overarching phenomenological theoretical framework with grounded theory data collection and analysis methods to yield PRO items and scales that have content validity.
Patrick, D., Rock, E., O’Neill, R., Powers, J., Scott, J., Kennedy, D., et al. (2007). Patient reported outcomes to support medical product labelling claims: FDA perspective. Value in Health, 10, 125–137. CrossRef
McColl, E. (2005). Developing Questionnaires. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 9–23). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117. CrossRef
Meyrick, J. (2007). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigorous quality. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5), 799–808. CrossRef
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Suppor Labelling Claims.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Internet. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidamce/5460dft.pdf.
Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Martin, J., Singer, E., Lessler, J. T., & Martin, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 109–130. CrossRef
Tourangeau, R. (2000). Impact of cognitive models on survey measurement. In R. Tourangeau, L. J. Rips, & K. Rasinski (Eds.), The psychology of survey response (pp. 313–343). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive interviewing in practice. In Cognitive. Interviewing (Ed.), A tool for improving questionnaire design (pp. 42–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. PubMed
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. CrossRef
Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N. K., Marquis, P., Revicki, D., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Harmonization group meeting at the food and drug administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 6(5), 522–531. CrossRefPubMed
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative research: Research methods for primary care. London: Sage Publications.
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (2006). Qualiative methods in psychology: A research guide. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). London: Sage.
Shaw, R. (2001). Why use interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology? Health Psychology Update, 10(4), 48–52.
Smith, J. A., Harre, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (2005). Rethinking methods in psychology. London: SAGE Publications.
Schaeffer, N., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65–88. CrossRef
Tourangeau, R. (2000). Respondents’ understanding of survey questions. In R. Tourangeau, L. J. Rips, & K. Rasinski (Eds.), The psychology of survey response (pp. 23–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tourangeau, R. (2000). Factual judgments and numerical estimates. In R. Tourangeau, L. J. Rips, & K. Rasinski (Eds.), The psychology of survey response (pp. 135–164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Armes, J., Krishnasamy, M., & Higginson, I. (2004). Fatigue in cancer. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dixon-Woods, M., Shaw, R. L., Agarwal, S., & Smith, J. A. (2004). The problem of appraising qualitative research. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 13(3), 223–225. CrossRef
Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods (2nd ed. ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, C., Sprangers, M. A., & Fayers, P. (2005). Response shift: You know it’s there, but how do you capture it? Challenges for the next phase of research. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 275–290). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed. ed.). London: Sage.
Sandelowski. (7-16-2000). 5th Annual Summer Institute in Qualitative Research, University of North Carolina School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC.
Charmaz, K. (1991). Good days, bad days: The self in chronic illness and time. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.
Weitzman, E. A., & Miles, M. B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149. CrossRef
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. London: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Trentacosti, A. M. (2007). Epoetin Alpha: FDA Overview of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Claims. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/slides/2007-4315s1-09-FDA-Trentacosti.ppt. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/slides/2007-4315s1-09-FDA-Trentacosti.ppt.
- PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation
Kathryn Eilene Lasch
- Springer Netherlands