Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement. Under the auspices of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative, a working meeting on content validity was convened with leading PRO measurement experts. Platform presentations and participant discussion highlighted key issues in the content validity debate, including inconsistency in the definition and evaluation of content validity, the need for empirical research to support methodological approaches to the evaluation of content validity, and concerns that continual re-evaluation of content validity slows the pace of science and leads to the proliferation of study-specific PROs. We advocate an approach to the evaluation of content validity, which includes meticulously documented qualitative and advanced quantitative methods. To advance the science of content validity in PROs, we recommend (1) development of a consensus definition of content validity; (2) development of content validity guidelines that delineate the role of qualitative and quantitative methods and the integration of multiple perspectives; (3) empirical evaluation of generalizability of content validity across applications; and (4) use of generic measures as the foundation for PROs assessment.
- AERA, APA, NCME. (1999). American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Standards for educational and psychological testing.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Food and Drug Administration guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register.
- Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during the first two years. Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S3–S11. CrossRef
- Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1263–1278. CrossRef
- Lasch, K., Marquis, P., Vigneux, M., et al. (2010). PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1087–1096. CrossRef
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide though qualitative analysis. Washington, DC: Sage.
- Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In: G. Lincoln & M. Day (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Morse, J., Barnett, N., Mayan, M., Olson, K., Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, Article 2. URL: http//www,ualberta.ca/~ijqm.
- Bowen, G. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8, 137–152. CrossRef
- Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18, 59–82. CrossRef
- Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Leidy, N. K., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). 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 PROTask force report. Value in Health, 12, 1075–1083. CrossRef
- Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Hays, R. D., & Fayers, P. (2005). Evaluating multi-item scales. In P. Fayers & R. D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: Methods and practice (2nd ed., pp. 41–53). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Revicki, D. A., Sorensen, S., & Wu, A. W. (1998). Reliability and validity of physical and mental health summary scores from the medical outcomes study HIV health survey. Medical Care, 36, 126–137. CrossRef
- Joeskog, K. G. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
- Hays, R. D., Revicki, D. A., & Coyne, K. S. (2005). Application of structural equation modeling to health outcomes research. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28, 295–309. CrossRef
- Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
- Stull, D. E. (2008). Analyzing growth and change: Latent variable growth curve modeling with an application to clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 17, 47–59. CrossRef
- Stull, D., Vernon, M. K., Legg, J. C., Viswanathan, H. N., Fairclough, D., & Revicki, D. A. (2010). Use of linear growth curve models for assessing the effects of darbepoetin alpha on hemoglobin and fatigue. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 31, 172–179. CrossRef
- Embretson, S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S22–S31. CrossRef
- DeWalt, D., Rothrock, N. P., Yount, S. P., & Stone, A. A. P. (2007). on behalf of the PCG. Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(Suppl 1), S12–S21. CrossRef
- Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting
Quality of Life Research
Volume 21, Issue 5 , pp 739-746
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- PRO development
- Content validity
- Qualitative research
- Quantitative research
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, 625 Michigan Ave., Suite 2700, Chicago, IL, Il 60611, USA
- 2. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
- 3. United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA
- 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- 5. The Brod Group, Mill Valley, CA, USA
- 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Vrije Universiteit (VU) University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands