Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:154-159. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.002. Epub 2016 Dec 18.

Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series-Paper 7: modern perspectives of measurement validation emphasize justification of inferences based on patient reported outcome scores.

Author information

1
School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: Rick.Sawatzky@twu.ca.
2
School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, Canada; Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology (MERM) Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
3
Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology (MERM) Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
4
School of Physical & Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University/McGill University Health Center (RVH), 687 Pine Avenue West, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1A1; Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en readaptation (CRIR), Montreal, Quebec.
5
Department of Medicine, McGill University/McGill University Health Center (RVH), 687 Pine Avenue West, Ross Pavilion R4.29, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1A1; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 5200 Eastern Avenue #4100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
6
Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 5200 Eastern Avenue #4100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
7
University of Ottawa, Ontario, Ottawa, Canada; Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
8
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
9
School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
10
Department of Community Health Sciences & O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
11
Department of Community Health Sciences, S113-750 Bannatyne Avenue, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Obtaining the patient's view about the outcome of care is an essential component of patient-centered care. Many patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for different purposes have been developed since the 1960s. Measurement validation is fundamental in the development, evaluation, and use of PRO instruments.

OBJECTIVES:

This paper provides a review of modern perspectives of measurement validation in relation to the followings three questions as applied to PROs: (1) What evidence is needed to warrant comparisons between groups and individuals? (2) What evidence is needed to warrant comparisons over time? and (3) What are the value implications, including personal and societal consequences, of using PRO scores?

DISCUSSION:

Measurement validation is an ongoing process that involves the accumulation of evidence regarding the justification of inferences, actions, and decisions based on measurement scores. These include inferences pertaining to comparisons between groups and comparisons over time as well as consideration of value implications of using PRO scores. Personal and societal consequences must be examined as part of a comprehensive approach to measurement validation. The answers to these three questions are fundamental to the the validity of different types of inferences, actions, and decisions made on PRO scores in health research, health care administration, and clinical practice.

KEYWORDS:

Messick; Patient-centered care; Patient-reported outcomes; Psychometrics; Response shift; Validation

PMID:
27998744
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center