| Title |
Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David O. Francis, Melissa L. McPheeters, Meaghan Noud, David F. Penson, Irene D. Feurer |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to advance a checklist of evaluative criteria designed to assess patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures' developmental measurement properties and applicability, which can be used by systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with a varied range of expertise in psychometric measure development methodology. A directed literature search was performed to identify original studies, textbooks, consensus guidelines, and published reports that propose criteria for assessing the quality of PRO measures. Recommendations from these sources were iteratively distilled into a checklist of key attributes. Preliminary items underwent evaluation through 24 cognitive interviews with clinicians and quantitative researchers. Six measurement theory methodological novices independently applied the final checklist to assess six PRO measures encompassing a variety of methods, applications, and clinical constructs. Agreement between novice and expert scores was assessed. The distillation process yielded an 18-item checklist with six domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (5) scoring and interpretation, and (6) respondent burden and presentation. With minimal instruction, good agreement in checklist item ratings was achieved between quantitative researchers with expertise in measurement theory and less experienced clinicians (mean kappa 0.70; range 0.66-0.87). We present a simplified checklist that can help guide systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with varied measurement theory expertise to evaluate the strengths and weakness of candidate PRO measures' developmental properties and the appropriateness for specific applications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 4% |
| Peru | 1 | 4% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 15% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 17% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,409,693
of 25,600,774 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#393
of 2,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,221
of 382,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,600,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 382,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.