The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content

Lidwine B Mokkink, Caroline B Terwee, Dirk L Knol, Paul W Stratford, Jordi Alonso, Donald L Patrick, Lex M Bouter, Henrica Cw de Vet, Lidwine B Mokkink, Caroline B Terwee, Dirk L Knol, Paul W Stratford, Jordi Alonso, Donald L Patrick, Lex M Bouter, Henrica Cw de Vet

Abstract

Background: The COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was developed in an international Delphi study to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient reported outcomes (HR-PROs). In this paper, we explain our choices for the design requirements and preferred statistical methods for which no evidence is available in the literature or on which the Delphi panel members had substantial discussion.

Methods: The issues described in this paper are a reflection of the Delphi process in which 43 panel members participated.

Results: The topics discussed are internal consistency (relevance for reflective and formative models, and distinction with unidimensionality), content validity (judging relevance and comprehensiveness), hypotheses testing as an aspect of construct validity (specificity of hypotheses), criterion validity (relevance for PROs), and responsiveness (concept and relation to validity, and (in) appropriate measures).

Conclusions: We expect that this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind the items, thereby enhancing the acceptance and use of the COSMIN checklist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box A. Internal consistency.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box D. Content validity (including face validity).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Box F. Hypotheses testing.

References

    1. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41:376–382. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-2.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010. in press .
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist manual.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. in press .
    1. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychology. 1993;78:98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Fayers PM, Hand DJ, Bjordal K, Groenvold M. Causal indicators in quality of life research. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:393–406. doi: 10.1023/A:1018491512095.
    1. Streiner DL. Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesn't matter. J Pers Assess. 2003;80:217–222. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8003_01.
    1. Heijden GJ Van der, Leffers P, Bouter LM. Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:29–38. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00078-5.
    1. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, Katz JN. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrom. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1585–1592.
    1. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273:59–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.1.59.
    1. World Health Organization. ICF: international classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Strauss ME, Smith GT. Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008.
    1. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52:281–302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957.
    1. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health. A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
    1. Messick S. The standard problem. Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist. 1975. pp. 955–966.
    1. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1991.
    1. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, Van Mechelen W, De Vet HCW. Qualitative attributes and measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires: a checklist. Accepted for publication in Sports Med.
    1. De Boer MR, Terwee CB, De Vet HC, Moll AC, Völker-Dieben HJ, Van Rens GH. Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:233–248. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1524-9.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882.
    1. Norman GR. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:1097–1105. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90051-6.
    1. Stockler MR, Osoba D, Goodwin P, Corey P, Tannock IF. Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: a comparison of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial specific module. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:137–145. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00269-2.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 4. Oxford: University Press; 2008.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–362. doi: 10.1023/A:1023499322593.
    1. Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman GR. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
    1. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7:286–299. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.
    1. De Vet HC, Ader HJ, Terwee CB, Pouwer F. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1203–1218. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3.
    1. De Vet H, Beckerman H, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Bouter LM. for the clinimetrics working group. Definition of clinical differences. Letter to the Editor. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:434.
    1. Revicki DA, Hays RD, Cella DF, Sloan JA. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001;38:195–200. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4.
    1. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–1015. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x.
    1. Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs. 1987;12:729–734. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner