How to develop a condition-specific PROM.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Munksgaard International Publishers Country of Publication: Denmark NLM ID: 9111504 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1600-0838 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09057188 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Scand J Med Sci Sports Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: Copenhagen : Munksgaard International Publishers
      Original Publication: Copenhagen : Munksgaard, c1991-
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Developing new patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for application in clinical studies can be necessary if an adequate PROM does not exist. For adequate measurement, it is essential that the PROM has face validity (ie, is perceived to be relevant by clinicians and researchers) and has high content validity (ie, content relevance and content coverage for the targeted patient group). The steps needed to create PROMs that possess face and content validity for a specific condition are described in this paper. Face validity is achieved by item identification and generation through literature review. Content validity is confirmed through repetitive cognitive interviews of patients from the targeted patient group in order to generate a consensus-based pilot-version of the new PROM. This qualitative process ensures that items are appropriately worded, understandable, and minimizes doubts about how items should be answered. A practical example of this process is presented, which shows the development of the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL), a condition-specific PROM for patients with deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).
      (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
    • References:
      Kirkley A, Griffin S, Whelan D. The development and validation of a quality of life-measurement tool for patients with meniscal pathology: the Western Ontario meniscal evaluation tool (WOMET). Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17:349-356.
      Godlee F. Outcomes that matter to patients. BMJ. 2012;344:e318.
      Jorgensen KJ, Kalager M, Barratt A, et al. Overview of guidelines on breast screening: Why recommendations differ and what to do about it. Breast. 2017;31:261-269.
      Rud K, Egerod I, Brodersen J. Patient experiences of fast-track breast cancer surgery. Klinisk Sygepleje. 2014;28:46-62.
      Brodersen J, Thorsen H, McKenna S. Writing health-Related Items for Rasch models - Patient-Reported Outcome Scales for Health Sciences: From Medical Paternalism to Patient Autonomy. In Christensen K, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, eds. Rasch Models in Health. London, UK: Wiley; 2013:281-298.
      Guyatt G, Drummond R, Meade M, Cook D, . Chapter 4: What is the Question?. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice (3rd ed.). London: BMJ Books; 2015:17-28.
      Jette AM, Norweg A, Haley SM. Achieving meaningful measurements of ICF concepts. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:963-969.
      Stucki G, Cieza A, Melvin J. The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a unifying model for the conceptual description of the rehabilitation strategy. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:279-285.
      McKenna SP, Doward LC, Niero M, Erdman R. Development of needs-based quality of life instruments. Value Health. 2004;7(suppl 1):S17-S21.
      Streiner DL, Norman GR. Devising the Items. Health Measurement Scales - a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:17-29.
      Mosier CI. A critical examination of the concepts of face validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 1947;7:191-205.
      Doward LC, Gnanasakthy A, Baker MG. Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:89.
      Doward LC, McKenna SP. Defining patient-reported outcomes. Value Health. 2004;7:S4-S8.
      Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539-549.
      Baro E, Carulla J, Cassinello J, et al. Development of a new questionnaire to assess patient perceptions of cancer-related fatigue: item generation and item reduction. Value Health. 2009;12:130-138.
      Brodersen J, Thorsen H, McKenna S, Doward L. Assessing psychosocial/quality of life outcomes in screening: how do we do it better? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:609.
      Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, et al. Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:213-218.
      Tanner SM, Dainty KN, Marx RG, Kirkley A. Knee-specific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients? Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:1450-1458.
      Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C. Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport. 2008;9:9-15.
      Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J. Development of the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL): a condition-specific questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:e293-301.
      Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J. Ensuring face validity in patient-related outcome scores-a matter of content. Knee. 2013;20:72-78.
      Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, et al. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health. 2009;12:1075-1083.
      Brodersen J, Thorsen H. Consequences of screening in breast cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2008;26:251-256.
      Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. Value Health. 2010;13:601-612.
      McKenna S, Wilbum J, Thorsen H, Brodersen J. In: Christensen K, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, Adapting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use in New Languages and Cultures. eds. Rasch Models in Health. London, UK: Wiley; 2013:303-315.
      Doward LC, Meads DM, Thorsen H. Requirements for quality of life instruments in clinical research. Value Health. 2004;7:S13-S16.
      Comins J, Brodersen J, Krogsgaard M, Beyer N. Rasch analysis of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): a statistical re-evaluation. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18:336-345.
      Kreiner S. Validity and objectivity: Reflections on the role and nature of Rasch models. Nordic Psychology. 2007;59:268-298.
      Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the motor component of the functional independence measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:922-928.
      Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography. Value Health. 2007;10:294-304.
      Kreiner S.Rasch models: validity, sufficiency and - in principle - objectivity. BMJ rapid response 2013. https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f232/rr/637148.
      Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Cockburn J. The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen. 2004;11:39-44.
      Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171-1179.
      Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28:88-96.
      Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D. Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2017;20:11-23.
      Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care. 2004;42:I7-16.
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: PROM development; condition-specific; construct validity; content validity; face validity
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20201104 Date Completed: 20210607 Latest Revision: 20210607
    • Publication Date:
      20220301
    • Accession Number:
      10.1111/sms.13868
    • Accession Number:
      33145839