Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodologische eigenschappen van meetinstrumenten

  • Chapter
Book cover Meten in de praktijk

  • 5033 Accesses

In de hoofdstukken 6 en 7 wordt stap 6 van het stappenplan besproken: ‘Hoe beoordeelt u de methodologische kwaliteit van het meetinstrument?’ (zie figuur 6.1). Uit de eerste vier stappen is duidelijk geworden wat wordt gemeten, bij wie dat wordt gemeten, wat het doel van de meting is en hoe het meetinstrument gezocht wordt. In stap 5 is bekeken welke aspecten met betrekking tot de hanteerbaarheid van het meetinstrument in de dagelijkse praktijk relevant zijn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatuur

  1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, Boer MR de, Windt DA van der, Knol DL, Dekker J et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). 2nd ed. 2001. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bouter LM, Dongen MCJM van, Zielhuis GA. Epidemiologisch onderzoek: opzet en interpretatie. 5e herziene druk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vet HC de, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epid 2006;59:1033–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vet HC de, Beurskens AJ. Reproduceerbaarheid van metingen. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 1998;142:2040–2043.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine 1983;8:141–144.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ostelo RW, Vet HC de, Knol DL, Brandt PA van den. 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:268–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;12:349–362.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ostelo RW, Deyo R, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, von Korff M. Patient-reported outcomes for pain and functional status in low back pain. Towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (in press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Riekie de Vet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Beurskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roland van Peppen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2008 Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Vet, R., Beurskens, S., van Peppen, R. (2008). Methodologische eigenschappen van meetinstrumenten. In: Meten in de praktijk. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, Houten. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-313-6557-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-313-6557-9_6

  • Publisher Name: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, Houten

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-313-5074-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-90-313-6557-9

  • eBook Packages: Dutch language eBook collection

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation