Abstract

BackgroundMeasures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology.MethodsThe method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains.ResultsThe AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items.ConclusionsThis study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data.

Highlights

  • Measures that reflect patients’ assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials

  • As the catalogue of validated patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments grows within a clinical specialty, so does the body of empirical evidence of what is important to patients with that condition (’content’ domains)

  • Item generation for the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ) The systematic review of PRO instruments used in the glaucoma populations identified 34 vision- or glaucomaspecific instruments and 7 generic instruments [9]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Measures that reflect patients’ assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments Such ‘top down’ approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. The body of evidence represented by the totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition may provide a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new PRO instruments Such ‘top down’ approaches, using expert opinion and/or the published literature in the field, are common [6] but the explicit methods used in the item generation and item reduction stages are often poorly reported [7,8]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.