Abstract
Abstract
This chapter fills out the epistemic theory for patient-centered measures by addressing the second criterion of patient-centeredness: be inclusive of patient perspectives. While Chapter 3 focused on the role patients play in creating these measures through, for instance, construct development, this chapter focuses on the role they play as respondents, that is, as people who fill out questionnaires. How can we ensure that measurement outcomes reflect the varied perspectives that people have on their, for example, physical functioning and quality of life? This chapter focuses on standardized questions—why we use them, the assumptions we make when we use them, and whether these assumptions are justified. The argument is that certain practices of standardization can undermine the alignment between validity and fairness in patient-centered measures, or what I will call “fit for purpose.” The solution this chapter puts forward is ongoing coordination between a measure’s construct and its measuring instrument.
Reference299 articles.
1. Appraising Convergent Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Systematic Reviews: Constructing Hypotheses and Interpreting Outcomes.;BMC Research Notes,2016
2. Incorporating the Patient’s Perspective into Drug Development and Communication: An Ad Hoc Task Force Report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonizations Group Meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001.;Value in Health,2003
3. Alcoff, Linda Martín. 2007. “Epistemologies of Ignorance: Three Types.” In Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan and Nancy Tuana, 39–58. New York: SUNY Press.