Abstract
Abstract
Background
Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on reliability and measurement error, if properly designed and analyzed. The aim of this study was to develop standards to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of clinician-reported outcome measurement instruments, performance-based outcome measurement instrument, and laboratory values.
Methods
We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving 52 panelists.
Results
Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. Consensus was reached on components of outcome measurement instruments, i.e. the potential sources of variation. Next, we reached consensus on standards on design requirements (n = 5), standards on preferred statistical methods for reliability (n = 3) and measurement error (n = 2), and their ratings on a four-point scale. There was one term for a component and one rating of one standard on which no consensus was reached, and therefore required a decision by the steering committee.
Conclusion
We developed a tool that enables researchers with and without thorough knowledge on measurement properties to assess the quality of a study on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.
Funder
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference31 articles.
1. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36.
2. Shavelson RJ, Webb NM. Generalizability Theory. A primer. Measurement Methods for the Social Science, vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage Publishing; 1991.
3. Brennan RL. Generalizability Theory. New York: Springer; 2001.
4. Fischer JSJ, Jak AJ, Kniker JE, Rudick RA. Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC): Administration and scoring manual. N.M.S. Society, editor. UNITECH Communications; 2001.
5. Goodkin DE, Hertsgaard D, Seminary J. Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: improving assessment sensitivity with box-and-block and nine-hole peg tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(10):850–4.
Cited by
278 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献