Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank
- 290 Downloads
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.
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.
Feedback from CIs identified substantial issues in 76 of the total 156 items. These items were subsequently modified or eliminated.
Cognitive interviews were an essential qualitative step in the development of the PLUS-M item bank and resulted in better functioning items.
KeywordsCognitive interviews Artificial limb Qualitative research Mobility Patient-reported outcome measure
This research is supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH Grant Number HD-065340). The authors wish to thank Rana Salem, MS, for performing the descriptive data analysis, Silvia Christian, BA, for performing the Lexile® analysis, and Meighan Rasley, BA, for scheduling participant interviews.
- 4.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 14.Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Incorporated.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Stenner, A. J., Horablin, I., Smith, D. R., & Smith, M. (1988). The Lexile framework. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics. Inc.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wilkerson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). WRAT4 wide range achievement test professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.Google Scholar