↓ Skip to main content

Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 3,045)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
98 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity
Published in
Quality of Life Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-1815-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melanie Hawkins, Gerald R. Elsworth, Richard H. Osborne

Abstract

Data from subjective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now being used in the health sector to make or support decisions about individuals, groups and populations. Contemporary validity theorists define validity not as a statistical property of the test but as the extent to which empirical evidence supports the interpretation of test scores for an intended use. However, validity testing theory and methodology are rarely evident in the PROM validation literature. Application of this theory and methodology would provide structure for comprehensive validation planning to support improved PROM development and sound arguments for the validity of PROM score interpretation and use in each new context. This paper proposes the application of contemporary validity theory and methodology to PROM validity testing. The validity testing principles will be applied to a hypothetical case study with a focus on the interpretation and use of scores from a translated PROM that measures health literacy (the Health Literacy Questionnaire or HLQ). Although robust psychometric properties of a PROM are a pre-condition to its use, a PROM's validity lies in the sound argument that a network of empirical evidence supports the intended interpretation and use of PROM scores for decision making in a particular context. The health sector is yet to apply contemporary theory and methodology to PROM development and validation. The theoretical and methodological processes in this paper are offered as an advancement of the theory and practice of PROM validity testing in the health sector.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Master 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 52 30%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 18%
Psychology 13 8%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 26 October 2022.
All research outputs
#709,291
of 24,871,735 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#23
of 3,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,413
of 336,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#2
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,871,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 336,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.