| Title |
Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Magasi, Gery Ryan, Dennis Revicki, William Lenderking, Ron D. Hays, Meryl Brod, Claire Snyder, Maarten Boers, David Cella |
| Abstract |
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of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement.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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Professor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 26% |
| Unknown | 13 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 27% |
| Psychology | 22 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,994
of 2,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,214
of 123,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,840 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 123,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.