Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2014

Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank

Auteurs: Sara J. Morgan, Dagmar Amtmann, Daniel C. Abrahamson, Andre J. Kajlich, Brian J. Hafner

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2014

Abstract

Purpose

Measuring constructs such as mobility with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enhance clinical and scientific understanding of how health conditions, like lower limb amputation, impact patients’ lives. When developing PRO questionnaires, cognitive interviews (CIs) are used to examine whether survey items are understandable, clear, and meaningful. The aim of this study was to use CIs to inform item development for the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), a PRO that measures mobility in prosthetic limb users.

Methods

Thirty-six CIs were conducted with 30 prosthetic limb users. Each participant responded to up to 30 items from the PLUS-M candidate item set. Each item was reviewed by a minimum of five participants who differed in self-reported mobility, literacy, level of amputation, and time since amputation. Items were revised based on participant feedback, and substantially revised items were re-evaluated through additional CIs.

Results

Feedback from CIs identified substantial issues in 76 of the total 156 items. These items were subsequently modified or eliminated.

Conclusion

Cognitive interviews were an essential qualitative step in the development of the PLUS-M item bank and resulted in better functioning items.

vorige artikel An evaluation of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire using Rasch analysis

volgende artikel Development and psychometric properties of the Maastricht Personal Autonomy Questionnaire (MPAQ) in older adults with a chronic physical illness

Sansam, K., O’Connor, R., Neumann, V., & Bhakta, B. (2012). Can simple clinical tests predict walking ability after prosthetic rehabilitation? Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(11), 968–974. doi:10.2340/16501977-1046.PubMedCrossRef

Lin, S. J., & Bose, N. H. (2008). Six-minute walk test in persons with transtibial amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(12), 2354–2359. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.05.021.PubMedCrossRef

Deathe, A. B., & Miller, W. C. (2005). The L test of functional mobility: Measurement properties of a modified version of the timed “up & go” test designed for people with lower-limb amputations. Physical Therapy, 85(7), 626–635.PubMed

Gailey, R. S., Roach, K. E., Applegate, E. B., Cho, B., Cunniffe, B., Licht, S., et al. (2002). The amputee mobility predictor: An instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(5), 613–627.PubMedCrossRef

Brooks, D., Parsons, J., Hunter, J. P., Devlin, M., & Walker, J. (2001). The 2-minute walk test as a measure of functional improvement in persons with lower limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(10), 1478–1483. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.25153.PubMedCrossRef

Datta, D., Ariyaratnam, R., & Hilton, S. (1996). Timed walking test: An all-embracing outcome measure for lower-limb amputees? Clinical Rehabilitation, 10(3), 227–232. doi:10.1177/026921559601000307.CrossRef

Stratford, P. W., Kennedy, D., Pagura, S. M. C., & Gollish, J. D. (2003). The relationship between self-report and performance-related measures: Questioning the content validity of timed tests. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 49(4), 535–540. doi:10.1002/art.11196.PubMedCrossRef

Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Johnson, K. L., & Cella, D. (2011). The PROMIS initiative: Involvement of rehabilitation stakeholders in development and examples of applications in rehabilitation research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10 Suppl), S12–S19. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.04.025.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Condie, E., Scott, H., & Treweek, S. (2006). Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: A review of the literature 1995 to 2005. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 18(6), P13.CrossRef

10.

Willis, G. B. (1999). Cognitive interviewing: A “how to” guide. Course manual prepared for a short course at the 1999 Meeting of the American Statistical Association: Research Triangle Institute.

11.

Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 12(3), 229–238.CrossRef

12.

Jobe, J. B. (2003). Cognitive psychology and self-reports: Models and methods. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 12(3), 219–227.CrossRef

13.

Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., et al. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109–130.CrossRef

14.

Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Incorporated.

15.

DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S12–S21. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

16.

Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. doi:10.1093/poq/nfm006.CrossRef

17.

Gershon, R. C., Lai, J. S., Bode, R., Choi, S., Moy, C., Bleck, T., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: Quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: Item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Quality of Life Research, 21(3), 475–486. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9958-8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Cella, D., Nowinski, C., Peterman, A., Victorson, D., Miller, D., Lai, J.-S., et al. (2011). The neurology quality-of-life measurement initiative. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10 Suppl), S28–S36. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.025.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®). (2012). PROMIS^® instrument development and psychometric evaluation scientific standards. http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/PROMIS_Standards_050212.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2013.

20.

Franchignoni, F., Giordano, A., Ferriero, G., Orlandini, D., Amoresano, A., & Perucca, L. (2007). Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39(2), 138–144. doi:10.2340/16501977-0033.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ziegler-Graham, K., MacKenzie, E. J., Ephraim, P. L., Travison, T. G., & Brookmeyer, R. (2008). Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(3), 422–429. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ephraim, P. L., Dillingham, T. R., Sector, M., Pezzin, L. E., & Mackenzie, E. J. (2003). Epidemiology of limb loss and congenital limb deficiency: A review of the literature. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(5), 747–761.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., et al. (2002). The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 371–403. doi:10.1086/341394.CrossRef

24.

Stenner, A. J., Horablin, I., Smith, D. R., & Smith, M. (1988). The Lexile framework. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics. Inc.

25.

US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims (US FDA guidance for industry related to the development and review of PRO measures). Retrieved from www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Information/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2010.

26.

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 in Health, 14(8), 978–988. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Wilkerson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). WRAT4 wide range achievement test professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

28.

Davis, T. C., Long, S. W., Jackson, R. H., Mayeaux, E. J., George, R. B., Murphy, P. W., et al. (1993). Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: A shortened screening instrument. Family Medicine, 25(6), 391–395.PubMed

Titel: Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank
Auteurs: Sara J. Morgan
Dagmar Amtmann
Daniel C. Abrahamson
Andre J. Kajlich
Brian J. Hafner
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0618-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 6/2014

Health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with celiac disease: patient-driven data from focus group interviews

Impact of autism in adolescents on parental quality of life

The Italian version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability and validity

Dutch–Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)

Depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, and cardiac event-free survival in patients with heart failure: a mediation analysis

Getting serious about test–retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations