Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Psychometric validation of PROM instruments.
Christensen, Karl B; Comins, Jonathan D; Krogsgaard, Michael R; Brodersen, John; Jensen, Jonas; Hansen, Christian Fugl; Kreiner, Svend.
Afiliação
  • Christensen KB; Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Comins JD; Section for Sports Traumatology M51, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Krogsgaard MR; The Research Unit for General Practice and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Brodersen J; Section for Sports Traumatology M51, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Jensen J; The Research Unit for General Practice and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Hansen CF; Primary Health Care Research Unit, Region Zealand, Denmark.
  • Kreiner S; Section for Sports Traumatology M51, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Scand J Med Sci Sports ; 31(6): 1225-1238, 2021 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33341986
The aim was to provide an overview of the different statistical methods for validation of patient-reported outcome measures, ranging from simple statistical methods available in all software packages to advanced statistical models that require specialized software. A non-technical summary of classical test theory (CTT) and modern test theory (MTT) is provided. Specifically, confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and Rasch analysis is outlined. One CTT and three MTT methods were used to validate the two subscales (Symptoms and Quality of Life) from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). For each methodology, two analyses were considered: (i) a unidimensional analysis ignoring the pre-specified dimensionality, and (ii) a two-dimensional analysis using the pre-specified dimensionality. While CTT did not adequately address central issues regarding the validity of the KOOS subscales, the three MTT methods yielded very similar results. In conclusion, MTT methods offer analysis of all relevant properties related to the validity of patient-reported outcome measures, while this is not the case for CTT. Claims about sufficient validity based on CTT methods are inadequate and should not be trusted.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Psicometria / Modelos Estatísticos / Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Scand J Med Sci Sports Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Psicometria / Modelos Estatísticos / Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Scand J Med Sci Sports Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article