Abstract
The use of a PRO measure assumes a link between the content in a measure and the targeted underlying construct (Wynd et al. 2003). In addition to other types of data, this is fundamentally demonstrated by evidence of content validity, i.e. the ‘complete relevance’ of the content to the target population and how adequately it represents the underlying construct. Without such evidence, the definition of the underlying concept being measured becomes ambiguous, and the scores would be rendered meaningless (Haynes et al. 1995). While evidence ensuring content validity is generated through inclusion of input from patients in defining the content of the measure, confirming that ‘complete relevance’ has been attained is crucial. This is addressed in Steps IV and V of the roadmap, where respondent understanding of the measure and comprehensives is explicitly explored in Step IV, with practicality and acceptability explored in Step V. Importantly, both steps allow the PRO measure to be fine-tuned to address any issues uncovered in the steps. These steps are illustrated in the current chapter, based on the patient and clinician panels conducted to assess the content validity of the HidroQoL as well as a pilot test of the measure assessing the practicality and acceptability of the HidroQoL.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
DeVellis RF (2016) Scale development: theory and applications. Applied social research methods. SAGE Publications, London. https://books.google.de/books?id=48ACCwAAQBAJ
Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118(8):622–629
Haynes SN, Richard D, Kubany ES (1995) Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 7(3):238
Higginson IJ, Carr AJ (2001) Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ 322(7297):1297
Jemec GBE, Wulf HC (1996) Patient–physician consensus on quality of life in dermatology. Clin Exp Dermatol 21(3):177–179
Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications Ltd., London. http://books.google.de/books?id=ak9UcAAACAAJ
Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Genesté B (1999) Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health 2(2):113–127
Lynn MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 35(6):382–385
Magasi S, Ryan G, Revicki D, Lenderking W, Hays RD, Brod M, Snyder C, Boers M, Cella D (2011) Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Qual Life Res 21:739–746
Mullin PA, Lohr KN, Bresnahan BW, McNulty P (2000) Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Qual Life Res 9(1):13–27
Norquist JM, Girman C, Fehnel S, DeMuro-Mercon C, Santanello N (2011) Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: criteria for consideration. Qual Life Res 21:1013–1020
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, London. http://books.google.de/books?id=r0fuAAAAMAAJ
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L (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 Health 14(8):978–988
Streiner DL, Norman GR (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UbKijeRqndwC
Terwee CB, Bot SDM, De Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42
Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA (2003) Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res 25(5):508–518
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Content verification of the 47-item prototype HidroQoL by patients and Experts
Practicality Questions
Box 4.1 Sample Questions Used in Pretesting of New PRO Questionnaires: Presented for the Overall Questionnaire or the Individual Items
-
1.
Did you experience any difficulties in understanding the instructions? [If yes, which specific words or elements were difficult?]
-
2.
Did you experience any difficulties in understanding or completing the items in this questionnaire? [If yes, which specific items, and what difficulties did you encounter?]
-
3.
What are your views regarding the number of items in this questionnaire?
-
4.
Are there any important aspects (items) currently not covered in the questionnaire, which should be added to the questionnaire?
-
5.
Are there any items currently in the questionnaire, which are not relevant and should be removed?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kamudoni, P., Johns, N., Salek, S. (2018). Content Validation by Patients and Experts: Is the PRO Measure Fit for Purpose?. In: Living with Chronic Disease: Measuring Important Patient-Reported Outcomes. Adis, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8414-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8414-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Adis, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8413-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8414-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)