↓ Skip to main content

The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
253 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
414 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, April 2016
DOI 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lidwine B. Mokkink, Cecilia A. C. Prinsen, Lex M. Bouter, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Caroline B. Terwee

Abstract

COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) is an initiative of an international multidisciplinary team of researchers who aim to improve the selection of outcome measurement instruments both in research and in clinical practice by developing tools for selecting the most appropriate available instrument. In this paper these tools are described, i.e. the COSMIN taxonomy and definition of measurement properties; the COSMIN checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties; a search filter for finding studies on measurement properties; a protocol for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments; a database of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments; and a guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for Core Outcome Sets in clinical trials. Currently, we are updating the COSMIN checklist, particularly the standards for content validity studies. Also new standards for studies using Item Response Theory methods will be developed. Additionally, in the future we want to develop standards for studies on the quality of non-patient reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcomes and performance-based outcomes. In summary, we plea for more standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments, for conducting high quality systematic reviews on measurement instruments in which the best available outcome measurement instrument is recommended, and for stopping the use of poor outcome measurement instruments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 414 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 411 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 80 19%
Researcher 42 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 39 9%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Other 102 25%
Unknown 75 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 96 23%
Psychology 20 5%
Neuroscience 14 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Other 49 12%
Unknown 108 26%