Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 9/2009

01-11-2009

Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience

Auteurs: Meryl Brod, Laura E. Tesler, Torsten L. Christensen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2009

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

Purpose

Establishing content validity for both new and existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is central to a scientifically sound instrument development process. Methodological and logistical issues present a challenge in regard to determining the best practices for establishing content validity.

Methods

This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding qualitative research to establish content validity based on the scientific methodological literature and authors’ experience.

Results

Conceptual issues and frameworks for qualitative interview research, developing the interview discussion guide, reaching saturation, analysis of data, developing a theoretical model, item generation and cognitive debriefing are presented. Suggestions are offered for dealing with logistical issues regarding facilitator qualifications, ethics approval, sample recruitment, group logistics, taping and transcribing interviews, honoraria and documenting content validity.

Conclusions

It is hoped this paper will stimulate further discussion regarding best practices for establishing content validity so that, as the PRO field moves forward, qualitative research can be evaluated for quality and acceptability according to scientifically established principles.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Nunally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed., p. 104). McGraw-Hill: New York. Nunally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed., p. 104). McGraw-Hill: New York.
2.
go back to reference Leidy, N., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes. Content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370.PubMedCrossRef Leidy, N., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes. Content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collection and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collection and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
go back to reference Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2004). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 1–23). London: SAGE. Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2004). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 1–23). London: SAGE.
6.
go back to reference Theobald, S., & Nhlema-Simwaka, B. (2008). The research, policy and practice interface: Reflections on using applied social research to promote equity in health in Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 760–770.PubMedCrossRef Theobald, S., & Nhlema-Simwaka, B. (2008). The research, policy and practice interface: Reflections on using applied social research to promote equity in health in Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 760–770.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Friedland, G. H. (2006). HIV medication adherence: The intersection of biomedical, biobehavioral, and social science research and clinical practice. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 43(Suppl 1), 53–59. Friedland, G. H. (2006). HIV medication adherence: The intersection of biomedical, biobehavioral, and social science research and clinical practice. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 43(Suppl 1), 53–59.
8.
go back to reference Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). British Medical Journal, 315, 740–743.PubMed Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). British Medical Journal, 315, 740–743.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Firestone, W. A., & Herriott, R. E. (1983). The formalization of qualitative research: An adaptation of “soft science” to the policy world. Evaluation Review, 7, 437–466.CrossRef Firestone, W. A., & Herriott, R. E. (1983). The formalization of qualitative research: An adaptation of “soft science” to the policy world. Evaluation Review, 7, 437–466.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Belue, R., Taylor-Richardson, K. D., Lin, J., Rivera, A. T., & Grandison, D. (2006). African Americans and participation in clinical trials: Differences in beliefs and attitudes by gender. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 27, 498–505.PubMedCrossRef Belue, R., Taylor-Richardson, K. D., Lin, J., Rivera, A. T., & Grandison, D. (2006). African Americans and participation in clinical trials: Differences in beliefs and attitudes by gender. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 27, 498–505.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Featherstone, K., & Donavan, J. L. (1998). Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 317, 1177–1180.PubMed Featherstone, K., & Donavan, J. L. (1998). Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 317, 1177–1180.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Lawton, J., Fox, A., Fox, C., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2003). Participating in the United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS): A qualitative study of patients’ experiences. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 394–398.PubMed Lawton, J., Fox, A., Fox, C., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2003). Participating in the United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS): A qualitative study of patients’ experiences. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 394–398.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Madsen, S. M., Holm, S., & Riis, P. (2009). Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: An interview study using a grounded theory approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 234–240.CrossRef Madsen, S. M., Holm, S., & Riis, P. (2009). Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: An interview study using a grounded theory approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 234–240.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Marsden, J., & Bradburn, J. (2004). Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial. Health Expectations, 7, 6–17.PubMedCrossRef Marsden, J., & Bradburn, J. (2004). Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial. Health Expectations, 7, 6–17.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Paterniti, D. A., Chen, M. S., Chiechi, C., Beckett, L. A., Horan, N., Turrell, C., et al. (2005). Asian Americans and cancer clinical trials: A mixed-methods approach to understanding awareness and experience. Cancer Supplement, 104(12), 3015–3024. Paterniti, D. A., Chen, M. S., Chiechi, C., Beckett, L. A., Horan, N., Turrell, C., et al. (2005). Asian Americans and cancer clinical trials: A mixed-methods approach to understanding awareness and experience. Cancer Supplement, 104(12), 3015–3024.
16.
go back to reference Silberfeld, M., Rueda, S., Krahn, M., & Naglie, G. (2002). Content validity for dementia of three generic preference based health related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 11, 71–79.PubMedCrossRef Silberfeld, M., Rueda, S., Krahn, M., & Naglie, G. (2002). Content validity for dementia of three generic preference based health related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 11, 71–79.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Waters, E., Maher, E., Salmon, L., Reddihough, D., & Boyd, R. (2005). Development of a condition-specific measure of quality of life for children with cerebral palsy: Empirical thematic data reported by parents and children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(2), 127–135.CrossRef Waters, E., Maher, E., Salmon, L., Reddihough, D., & Boyd, R. (2005). Development of a condition-specific measure of quality of life for children with cerebral palsy: Empirical thematic data reported by parents and children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(2), 127–135.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wieringa, N. F., Peschar, J. L., Denig, P., de Graeff, P. A., & Vos, R. (2003). Connecting pre-marketing clinical research and medical practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(1), 202–219.PubMedCrossRef Wieringa, N. F., Peschar, J. L., Denig, P., de Graeff, P. A., & Vos, R. (2003). Connecting pre-marketing clinical research and medical practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(1), 202–219.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press.
20.
go back to reference Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRef Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 311–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 311–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
go back to reference Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
go back to reference McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing anf reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334–342.PubMed McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing anf reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334–342.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
go back to reference Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.PubMedCrossRef Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.CrossRef Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2006). Focus groups (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2006). Focus groups (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
go back to reference Quine, S., & Cameron, I. (1995). The use of focus groups with the disabled elderly. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 454–462.CrossRef Quine, S., & Cameron, I. (1995). The use of focus groups with the disabled elderly. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 454–462.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Koppelman, N., & Bourjolly, J. (2001). Conducting focus groups with women with severe psychiatric disabilities: A methodological overview. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 25(2), 142–151.PubMed Koppelman, N., & Bourjolly, J. (2001). Conducting focus groups with women with severe psychiatric disabilities: A methodological overview. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 25(2), 142–151.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311, 299–302.PubMed Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311, 299–302.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Greenbaum, T. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greenbaum, T. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
go back to reference Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
go back to reference Hollander, J. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602–637.CrossRef Hollander, J. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602–637.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D., Cleeland, C. S., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S86–S93.PubMedCrossRef Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D., Cleeland, C. S., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S86–S93.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
36.
go back to reference Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique, in theory? In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 23–44). New York: Wiley-IEEE.CrossRef Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique, in theory? In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 23–44). New York: Wiley-IEEE.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Beatty, P. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 45–66). New York: Wiley-IEEE.CrossRef Beatty, P. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 45–66). New York: Wiley-IEEE.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Cutliffe, J. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476–1484.CrossRef Cutliffe, J. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476–1484.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.CrossRef Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Poland, B. (2003). Transcription quality. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267–288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Poland, B. (2003). Transcription quality. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267–288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
go back to reference Bernard, H. R. (2005). Research methods in anthropology (4th ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira. Bernard, H. R. (2005). Research methods in anthropology (4th ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
42.
go back to reference St John, W., & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(4), 393–397.PubMedCrossRef St John, W., & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(4), 393–397.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Jennings, B. (2007). Qualitative analysis: A case of software or ‘peopleware?’. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 483–484.PubMedCrossRef Jennings, B. (2007). Qualitative analysis: A case of software or ‘peopleware?’. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 483–484.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Morison, M., & Moir, J. (1998). The role of computer software in the analysis of qualitative data: Efficient clerk, research assistant or Trojan horse? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 106–116.PubMedCrossRef Morison, M., & Moir, J. (1998). The role of computer software in the analysis of qualitative data: Efficient clerk, research assistant or Trojan horse? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 106–116.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 219–262). London: Sage. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 219–262). London: Sage.
46.
go back to reference Hruschka, D., Schwartz, D., St John, D., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R., & Carey, J. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 307–331. Hruschka, D., Schwartz, D., St John, D., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R., & Carey, J. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 307–331.
47.
go back to reference Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscomb, J., Teschendorf, B., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S66–S75.PubMedCrossRef Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscomb, J., Teschendorf, B., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S66–S75.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
49.
go back to reference Acquadro, C., Conway, C., Wolf, B., Anfray, C., Hareendran, A., Mear, I., et al. (2008). Development of a standardized classification system for the translations of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Quality of Life Newsletter, 39, 5. Acquadro, C., Conway, C., Wolf, B., Anfray, C., Hareendran, A., Mear, I., et al. (2008). Development of a standardized classification system for the translations of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Quality of Life Newsletter, 39, 5.
50.
go back to reference Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value in Health, 10(2), S94–S105.PubMedCrossRef Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value in Health, 10(2), S94–S105.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1–25. Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1–25.
53.
go back to reference Krueger, R. (1995). The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 524–530.CrossRef Krueger, R. (1995). The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 524–530.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Weinfurt, K. (2007). Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: The PRO evidence dossier. Quality of Life Research, 16, 717–723.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Weinfurt, K. (2007). Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: The PRO evidence dossier. Quality of Life Research, 16, 717–723.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience
Auteurs
Meryl Brod
Laura E. Tesler
Torsten L. Christensen
Publicatiedatum
01-11-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2009

Quality of Life Research 9/2009 Naar de uitgave