Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments

L B Mokkink, C B Terwee, D L Knol, P W Stratford, J Alonso, D L Patrick, L M Bouter, H C W de Vet, L B Mokkink, C B Terwee, D L Knol, P W Stratford, J Alonso, D L Patrick, L M Bouter, H C W de Vet

Abstract

Background: Choosing an adequate measurement instrument depends on the proposed use of the instrument, the concept to be measured, the measurement properties (e.g. internal consistency, reproducibility, content and construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretability), the requirements, the burden for subjects, and costs of the available instruments. As far as measurement properties are concerned, there are no sufficiently specific standards for the evaluation of measurement properties of instruments to measure health status, and also no explicit criteria for what constitutes good measurement properties. In this paper we describe the protocol for the COSMIN study, the objective of which is to develop a checklist that contains COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, including explicit criteria for satisfying these standards. We will focus on evaluative health related patient-reported outcomes (HR-PROs), i.e. patient-reported health measurement instruments used in a longitudinal design as an outcome measure, excluding health care related PROs, such as satisfaction with care or adherence. The COSMIN standards will be made available in the form of an easily applicable checklist.

Method: An international Delphi study will be performed to reach consensus on which and how measurement properties should be assessed, and on criteria for good measurement properties. Two sources of input will be used for the Delphi study: (1) a systematic review of properties, standards and criteria of measurement properties found in systematic reviews of measurement instruments, and (2) an additional literature search of methodological articles presenting a comprehensive checklist of standards and criteria. The Delphi study will consist of four (written) Delphi rounds, with approximately 30 expert panel members with different backgrounds in clinical medicine, biostatistics, psychology, and epidemiology. The final checklist will subsequently be field-tested by assessing the inter-rater reproducibility of the checklist.

Discussion: Since the study will mainly be anonymous, problems that are commonly encountered in face-to-face group meetings, such as the dominance of certain persons in the communication process, will be avoided. By performing a Delphi study and involving many experts, the likelihood that the checklist will have sufficient credibility to be accepted and implemented will increase.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
the Delphi procedure of the COSMIN study.

References

    1. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0.
    1. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193–205. doi: 10.1023/A:1015291021312.
    1. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clinical Therapeutics. 1996;18:979–992. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(96)80054-3.
    1. Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Methodological considerations in functional assessment. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1987;14 Suppl 15:6–10.
    1. Andresen EM, Meyers AR. Health-related quality of life outcomes measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:S30–S45. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2000.20621.
    1. Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson NK, for the European Regularoty Issues on Quality of Life Assessment Group Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life - a European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Information Journal. 2002;36:209–238.
    1. McDowell I, Jenkinson C. Development standards for health measures. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:238–246.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales A practical guide to their development and use. second. Oxford, University Press; 1995.
    1. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–468. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1.
    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. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-23.
    1. Bialocerkowski AE, Grimmer KA, Bain GI. A systematic review of the content and quality of wrist outcome instruments. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12:149–157. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/12.2.149.
    1. Daker-White G. Reliable and valid self-report outcome measures in sexual (dys)function: a systematic review. Arch Sex Behav. 2002;31:197–209. doi: 10.1023/A:1014743304566.
    1. Hayes JA, Black NA, Jenkinson C, Young JD, Rowan KM, Daly K, Ridley S. Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–111.
    1. Hearn J, Higginson IJ. Outcome measures in palliative care for advanced cancer patients: a review. J Public Health Med. 1997;19:193–199.
    1. Sun Y, Sturmer T, Gunther KP, Brenner H. Reliability and validity of clinical outcome measurements of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol. 1997;16:185–198. doi: 10.1007/BF02247849.
    1. Buck D, Jacoby A, Massey A, Ford G. Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 2000;31:2004–2010.
    1. Clark TJ, Khan KS, Foon R, Pattison H, Bryan S, Gupta JK. Quality of life instruments in studies of menorrhagia: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;104:96–104. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00076-3.
    1. Connolly MA, Johnson JA. Measuring quality of life in paediatric patients. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;16:605–625. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199916060-00002.
    1. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:13–35. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002.
    1. De Boer MR, Moll AC, De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Volker-Dieben HJ, Van Rens GH. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:257–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2004.00187.x.
    1. De Korte J, Mombers FM, Sprangers MA, Bos JD. The suitability of quality-of-life questionnaires for psoriasis research: a systematic literature review. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1221–1227. doi: 10.1001/archderm.138.9.1221.
    1. De Tiedra AG, Mercadal J, Badia X, Mascaro JM, Lozano R. A method to select an instrument for measurement of HR-QOL for cross-cultural adaptation applied to dermatology. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14:405–422. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199814040-00007.
    1. Edwards B, Ung L. Quality of life instruments for caregivers of patients with cancer: a review of their psychometric properties. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25:342–349. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200210000-00002.
    1. Hallin P, Sullivan M, Kreuter M. Spinal cord injury and quality of life measures: a review of instrument psychometric quality. Spinal Cord. 2000;38:509–523. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101054.
    1. Margolis MK, Coyne K, Kennedy-Martin T, Baker T, Schein O, Revicki DA. Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning: a literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:791–812. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200220120-00001.
    1. Marinus J, Ramaker C, Van Hilten JJ, Stiggelbout AM. Health related quality of life in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review of disease specific instruments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72:241–248. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.72.2.241.
    1. Pallis AG, Mouzas IA. Instruments for quality of life assessment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2000;32:682–688. doi: 10.1016/S1590-8658(00)80330-8.
    1. Ringash J, Bezjak A. A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck. 2001;23:201–213. doi: 10.1002/1097-0347(200103)23:3<201::AID-HED1019>;2-M.
    1. Bot SD, Terwee CB, Van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, De Vet HC. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:335–341. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.007724.
    1. Michener LA, Leggin BG. A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:68–76.
    1. Salerno DF, Copley-Merriman C, Taylor TN, Shinogle J, Schulz RM. A review of functional status measures for workers with upper extremity disorders. Occup Environ Med. 2002;59:664–670. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.10.664.
    1. Swinkels RA, Oostendorp RA, Bouter LM. Which are the best instruments for measuring disabilities in gait and gait-related activities in patients with rheumatic disorders. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2004;22:25–33.
    1. De Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. How to measure comorbidity. a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:221–229. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00585-1.
    1. Bot SD, Terwee CB, Van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, De Vet HC. Psychometric evaluation of self-report questionnaires - the development of a checklist. In: Ader HJ and Mellenbergh GJ, editor. Second workshop on research methodology. Amsterdam: VU University, June 25-27; 2003. p. 161-168.
    1. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25:535–552. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2004.09.003.
    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. Moore CM. Group techniques for idea building Applied Social Research Methods Series. Newbury Park: Sage Publicantions, Inc.; 1987.
    1. Evers S, Goossens M, De Vet H, Van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245.
    1. Verhagen AP, De Vet HC, De Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1235–1241. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00131-0.
    1. Fried BJ, Boers M, Baker PR. A method for achieving consensus on rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures: the OMERACT conference process. J Rheumatol. 1993;20:548–551.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren