Further psychometric evaluation of the WOUND-Q: A responsiveness study.

The WOUND-Q is a modular patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND-Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND-Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND-Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow-up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND-Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND-Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre-defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND-Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.

"I Want It to Look Natural": Development and Validation of the FACE-Q Aesthetics Natural Module.

BACKGROUND: The concept of "natural" after a facial aesthetic treatment represents an understudied area. We added scales to FACE-Q Aesthetics to provide a means to measure this concept from the patient's perspective. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop and validate the FACE-Q Aesthetic Natural module. METHODS: Concept elicitation interviews with people having minimally invasive treatments were conducted to explore the natural concept and develop scales. Patient and expert input refined scale content. An online sample (ie, Prolific) of people who had a facial aesthetic treatment was analyzed with Rasch measurement theory to examine psychometric properties. A test-retest reliability study was performed, and construct validity was examined. RESULTS: Interviews with 26 people were conducted. Three scales were developed and refined with input from 12 experts, 11 patients, and 184 online survey participants. Data from 1358 online participants provided evidence of scale reliability and validity. Reliability was high with person separation index, Cronbach alpha, and intraclass correlation coefficient values without extremes ≥0.82. Tests of construct validity confirmed that the scales functioned as hypothesized. Higher scores on the Expectations scale were associated with how important it was to have a natural look and movement after treatment. In addition, higher scores on the Natural Appearance and Natural Outcome scales correlated with better scores on other FACE-Q Aesthetics scales, and were associated with the face looking and feeling natural and with overall satisfaction with facial appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Many people seeking facial aesthetic treatments want to look natural after treatment. These new FACE-Q Aesthetics scales provide a means to measure the concept of natural from the patient's perspective.

Improving the Impact of BODY-Q Scores Through Minimal Important Differences in Body Contouring Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The BODY-Q is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure for comprehensive assessment of treatment outcomes specific to patients undergoing body contouring surgery (BCS). However, for BODY-Q to be meaningfully interpreted and used in clinical practice, minimal important difference (MID) scores are needed. A MID is defined as the smallest change in outcome measure score that patients perceive important. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine BODY-Q MID estimates for patients undergoing BCS to enhance the interpretability of the BODY-Q. METHODS: Data from an international, prospective cohort from Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland were included. Two distribution-based methods were used to estimate MID: 0.2 standard deviations of mean baseline scores and the mean standardized response change of BODY-Q scores from baseline to 3 years postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 12,554 assessments from 3,237 participants (mean age; 42.5±9.3 years; body mass index; 28.9±4.9 kg/m2) were included. Baseline MID scores ranged from 1 to 5 in the health-related quality of life (HRQL) scales and 3 to 6 in the appearance scales. The estimated MID scores from baseline to 3 years follow-up ranged from 4 to 5 in HRQL and from 4 to 8 in the appearance scales. CONCLUSIONS: The BODY-Q MID estimates from before BCS to 3 years postoperatively ranged from 4 to 8 and are recommended for use to interpret patients' BODY-Q scores, evaluate treatment effects of different BCS procedures, and for calculating sample size for future studies.

Further psychometric validation and test-retest reproducibility of the WOUND-Q.

WOUND-Q is a condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure developed for all types of chronic wounds, located anywhere on the body. To establish reliability and validity of a patient-reported outcome measure, multiple pieces of evidence are required. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement properties of 9 of the 13 WOUND-Q scales and perform a test-retest reproducibility study in an international sample. In August 2022, we invited members of an international online community (Prolific.com) with any type of chronic wound to complete a survey containing the WOUND-Q scales, the Wound-QoL and EQ-5D. A test-retest survey was performed 7 days after the first survey. It was possible to examine the reliability and validity of eight of the nine WOUND-Q scales by Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT). To examine test-retest reproducibility intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), the standard error of the measurement and the smallest detectable change were calculated. In total, 421 patients from 22 different countries with 11 different types of chronic wounds took part in this study. Our analyses provided further evidence of the reliability and validity of the scales measuring wound characteristics (assessment, drainage, smell), health-related quality of life (life impact, psychological, sleep, social) and wound treatment (dressing).

The Development, Deployment, and Evaluation of the CLEFT-Q Computerized Adaptive Test: A Multimethods Approach Contributing to Personalized, Person-Centered Health Assessments in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and computerized adaptive tests (CATs) may improve care in a range of surgical conditions. However, most available CATs are neither condition-specific nor coproduced with patients and lack clinically relevant score interpretation. Recently, a PROM called the CLEFT-Q has been developed for use in the treatment of cleft lip or palate (CL/P), but the assessment burden may be limiting its uptake into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a CAT for the CLEFT-Q, which could facilitate the uptake of the CLEFT-Q PROM internationally. We aimed to conduct this work with a novel patient-centered approach and make source code available as an open-source framework for CAT development in other surgical conditions. METHODS: CATs were developed with the Rasch measurement theory, using full-length CLEFT-Q responses collected during the CLEFT-Q field test (this included 2434 patients across 12 countries). These algorithms were validated in Monte Carlo simulations involving full-length CLEFT-Q responses collected from 536 patients. In these simulations, the CAT algorithms approximated full-length CLEFT-Q scores iteratively, using progressively fewer items from the full-length PROM. Agreement between full-length CLEFT-Q score and CAT score at different assessment lengths was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient, root-mean-square error (RMSE), and 95% limits of agreement. CAT settings, including the number of items to be included in the final assessments, were determined in a multistakeholder workshop that included patients and health care professionals. A user interface was developed for the platform, and it was prospectively piloted in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Interviews were conducted with 6 patients and 4 clinicians to explore end-user experience. RESULTS: The length of all 8 CLEFT-Q scales in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Set combined was reduced from 76 to 59 items, and at this length, CAT assessments reproduced full-length CLEFT-Q scores accurately (with correlations between full-length CLEFT-Q score and CAT score exceeding 0.97, and the RMSE ranging from 2 to 5 out of 100). Workshop stakeholders considered this the optimal balance between accuracy and assessment burden. The platform was perceived to improve clinical communication and facilitate shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Our platform is likely to facilitate routine CLEFT-Q uptake, and this may have a positive impact on clinical care. Our free source code enables other researchers to rapidly and economically reproduce this work for other PROMs.

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology.

BACKGROUND: The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature. METHODS: A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis. RESULTS: There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.

Validation of the Dutch Version of the BODY-Q Measuring Appearance, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Experience of Healthcare in Patients Undergoing Bariatric and Body Contouring Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure developed for use in bariatric and body contouring surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the BODY-Q. METHODS: The BODY-Q consists of 163 items in 21 independently functioning scales that measure appearance, health-related quality of life, and experience of care. The data used to validate the Dutch BODY-Q were provided by 2 prospective multicenter cohort studies across 3 hospitals in the Netherlands. The BODY-Q was administered before and after surgery at 3 or 4 months and 12 months. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used to evaluate the BODY-Q for targeting, category threshold order, Rasch model fit, Person Separation Index, and differential item functioning by language (original English data vs Dutch data). RESULTS: Data were collected between January 2016 and May 2019. The study included 876 participants, who provided 1614 assessments. Validity was supported by 3 RMT findings: most scales showed good targeting, 160 out of 163 items (98.2%) evidenced ordered thresholds, and 142 out of 163 items (87.1%) fitted the RMT model. Reliability was high with Person Separation Index values >0.70 for 19 out of 21 scales. There was negligible influence of differential item functioning by language on person item locations and the scale scoring. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the Dutch BODY-Q for use in bariatric and body contouring patients in the Netherlands. The Dutch BODY-Q can be used in (inter)national research and clinical practice.

The FATIGUE-PRO: a new patient-reported outcome instrument to quantify fatigue in patients affected by systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to implement a patient-centred and evidence-based approach to develop a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure fatigue in patients with SLE. METHODS: A three-step mixed methods psychometric (MMP) approach was followed. Steps comprised first draft item generation and review using interview data; evaluation and refinement of second draft items using mixed methods data, including interview and quantitative data from a phase 2 clinical study in SLE analysed using Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis; and evaluation of the final FATIGUE-PRO items using RMT and complementary Classical Test Theory (CTT) analyses. Guided by MMP criteria, a team of clinicians and outcome-measurement experts assessed evidence to inform instrument development. RESULTS: Step 1 culminated in 55 items (n = 39 patients interviewed). Their refinement in step 2 using mixed methods evidence led to the final FATIGUE-PRO instrument comprising 31 items across three scales of fatigue: physical fatigue (9 items), mental and cognitive fatigue (11 items) and susceptibility to fatigue (11 items). Qualitative (n = 43 patients) and quantitative (n = 106 patients) evidence strongly supported the scales' content comprehensiveness and targeting, item quality and fit, conceptual uniqueness and appropriateness of the response scale. The FATIGUE-PRO further benefited from excellent reliability (RMT: 0.92-0.94 and CTT: 0.95-0.96) and supportive evidence of construct validity from assessments against other PROs. CONCLUSION: The conceptual advances, comprehensive coverage and strong psychometric properties of the FATIGUE-PRO will significantly advance the measurement and management of fatigue in SLE, both in clinical trials and routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT02804763.

The Role of Entropy in Construct Specification Equations (CSE) to Improve the Validity of Memory Tests: Extension to Word Lists.

Metrological methods for word learning list tests can be developed with an information theoretical approach extending earlier simple syntax studies. A classic Brillouin entropy expression is applied to the analysis of the Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test RAVLT (immediate recall), where more ordered tasks-with less entropy-are easier to perform. The findings from three case studies are described, including 225 assessments of the NeuroMET2 cohort of persons spanning a cognitive spectrum from healthy older adults to patients with dementia. In the first study, ordinality in the raw scores is compensated for, and item and person attributes are separated with the Rasch model. In the second, the RAVLT IR task difficulty, including serial position effects (SPE), particularly Primacy and Recency, is adequately explained (Pearson's correlation R=0.80) with construct specification equations (CSE). The third study suggests multidimensionality is introduced by SPE, as revealed through goodness-of-fit statistics of the Rasch analyses. Loading factors common to two kinds of principal component analyses (PCA) for CSE formulation and goodness-of-fit logistic regressions are identified. More consistent ways of defining and analysing memory task difficulties, including SPE, can maintain the unique metrological properties of the Rasch model and improve the estimates and understanding of a person's memory abilities on the path towards better-targeted and more fit-for-purpose diagnostics.

Development and Psychometric Validation of BREAST-Q Scales Measuring Cancer Worry, Fatigue, and Impact on Work.

BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to develop new BREAST-Q scales to measure Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. METHODS: Data were collected between January 2017 and November 2019. Phase 1 (qualitative) included participants from Canada and the USA, pre/post any type of breast cancer treatment (surgery, adjuvant, neoadjuvant). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded line-by-line. New scales were drafted and refined through cognitive interviews and expert input. Phase 2 (field-test study) involved USA members of the Love Research Army (LRA). Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to examine reliability and validity. RESULTS: In phase 1, 57 women were interviewed. Three concepts were identified as important to the breast cancer experience that are not currently covered in the BREAST-Q and developed into scales, i.e., Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. Feedback from nine women and 23 experts was used to establish content validity. The scales were field-tested in the LRA sample (n = 1680), of whom 1006 completed a test-retest. Reliability was > 0.81 for the person separation index, > 0.89 for Cronbach's alpha and > 0.83 for interclass correlation coefficients. Lower scores on all three scales were significantly associated with being closer in time to diagnosis and having a higher cancer stage at diagnosis (p < 0.001 on ANOVA). CONCLUSION: These new scales expand the BREAST-Q measurement system and provide a means to evaluate additional important outcomes for breast cancer patients in clinical care and research.

Rasch Analysis of Patient- and Parent-Reported Outcome Measures in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric performance of the patient- and parent-reported measures in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Set for Cleft Care, and to identify ways of improving concept coverage. METHODS: Data from 714 patients with cleft lip and/or palate, aged 8 to 9, 10 to 12.5, and 22 years were collected between November 2015 and April 2019 at Erasmus University Medical Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Duke Children's Hospital, and from participating sites in the CLEFT-Q Phase 3 study. The Standard Set includes 9 CLEFT-Q scales, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire, the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Oral Symptoms Scale (COHIP-OSS), and the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS). Targeting, item-fit statistics, thresholds for item responses, and measurement precision (PSI) were analyzed using Rasch measurement theory. RESULTS: The proportion of the sample to score within each instruments range of measurement varied from 69% (ICS) to 92% (CLEFT-Q teeth and COHIP-OSS). Specific problems with individual items within the NOSE and COHIP-OSS questionnaires were noted, such as poor item fit to the Rasch model and disordered thresholds (6 of 10). Reliability measured with PSI was above 0.82 for the ICS and all but one CLEFT-Q scale (speech distress). PSIs were lowest for the COHIP-OSS (0.43) and NOSE questionnaire (0.35). CONCLUSION: The patient- and parent-reported components within the facial appearance, psychosocial function, and speech domains are valid measures; however, the facial function and oral health domains are not sufficiently covered by the CLEFT-Q eating and drinking, NOSE, and COHIP-OSS, and these questionnaires may not be accurate enough to stratify cleft-related outcomes.

An international mixed methods study to develop a new preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module.

BACKGROUND: Generic preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0-4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module  that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4-5 response levels each. CONCLUSION: The field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

International study to develop the WOUND-Q patient-reported outcome measure for all types of chronic wounds.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for chronic wounds mainly focus on specific types of wounds. Our team developed the WOUND-Q for use with all types of wounds in any anatomic location. We conducted 60 concept elicitation interviews with patients in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States. Analysis identified concepts of interest to patients and scales were formed and refined through cognitive interviews with 20 patients and input from 26 wound care experts. Scales were translated into Danish and Dutch. An international field-test study collected data from 881 patients (1020 assessments) with chronic wounds. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used to refine the scales and examine psychometric properties. RMT analysis supported the reliability and validity of 13 WOUND-Q scales that measure wound characteristics (assessment, discharge, and smell), health-related quality of life (life impact, psychological, sleep impact, and social), experience of care (information, home care nurses, medical team, and office staff), and wound treatment (dressing and suction device). The WOUND-Q can be used to measure outcomes in research and clinical practice from the perspective of patients with any type of wound.

The Role of Entropy in Construct Specification Equations (CSE) to Improve the Validity of Memory Tests.

Commonly used rating scales and tests have been found lacking reliability and validity, for example in neurodegenerative diseases studies, owing to not making recourse to the inherent ordinality of human responses, nor acknowledging the separability of person ability and item difficulty parameters according to the well-known Rasch model. Here, we adopt an information theory approach, particularly extending deployment of the classic Brillouin entropy expression when explaining the difficulty of recalling non-verbal sequences in memory tests (i.e., Corsi Block Test and Digit Span Test): a more ordered task, of less entropy, will generally be easier to perform. Construct specification equations (CSEs) as a part of a methodological development, with entropy-based variables dominating, are found experimentally to explain (r =R2 = 0.98) and predict the construct of task difficulty for short-term memory tests using data from the NeuroMET (n = 88) and Gothenburg MCI (n = 257) studies. We propose entropy-based equivalence criteria, whereby different tasks (in the form of items) from different tests can be combined, enabling new memory tests to be formed by choosing a bespoke selection of items, leading to more efficient testing, improved reliability (reduced uncertainties) and validity. This provides opportunities for more practical and accurate measurement in clinical practice, research and trials.

Development and Validation of the BREAST-Q Breast-Conserving Therapy Module.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer surgery, patient-reported outcome measures are needed to measure outcomes best reported by patients (e.g., psychosocial well-being). This study aimed to develop and validate a new BREAST-Q module to address the unique concerns of patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Phase 1 involved qualitative and cognitive interviews with women who had BCT and clinical expert input to establish content for the BCT module. A field-test (phase 2) was performed, and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used for item reduction and examination of reliability and validity. Validation of the item-reduced scales in a clinical sample (phase 3) was conducted for further assessment of their psychometric properties. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 women resulted in the addition of 15 new items across multiple existing BREAST-Q scales and the development of two new scales (Adverse Effects of Radiation and Satisfaction With Information-Radiation Therapy). Feedback from 15 patients and 5 clinical experts were used to refine the instructions, response options, and item wording. An RMT analysis of data from 3497 women resulted in item reduction. The final set of scales showed evidence of ordered response option thresholds, good item fit, and good reliability, except for the Adverse Effects of the Radiation Scale. Validity and reliability were further supported by the phase 3 data from 3125 women. CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q BCT module can be used in research and clinical care to evaluate quality metrics and to compare surgical outcomes across all breast cancer surgery patients.

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes data to inform oncology clinical decision making: Introducing the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module.

BACKGROUND: Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess patients with head and neck cancer have methodologic and content deficiencies. Herein, the development of a PROM that meets a range of clinical and research needs across head and neck oncology is described. METHODS: After development of the conceptual framework, which involved a literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and expert input, patients with head and neck cancer who were treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were recruited by their surgeon. The FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module was completed by patients in the clinic or was sent by mail. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used for item selection for final scale development and to examine reliability and validity. Scale scores for surgical defect and adjuvant therapy were compared with the cohort average to assess clinical applicability. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 219 patients who completed the draft scales. Fourteen independently functioning scales were analyzed. Item fit was good for all 102 items, and all items had ordered thresholds. Scale reliability was acceptable (person separation index was >0.75 for all scales; Cronbach α values were >.87 for all scales; test-retest ranged from 0.86 to 0.96). The scales performed well in a clinically predictable way, demonstrating functional and psychosocial differences across disease sites and with adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The scales forming the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module were found to be clinically relevant and scientifically sound. This new PROM now is validated and ready for use in research and clinical care.

A Rasch Measurement Theory Approach to Improve the Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Interpretability is a key challenge for researchers, clinicians, and patients interested in using the output of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. When rich and detailed meaning is required to assist individual patients to make treatment choices we propose that the item content of psychometric rating scales should be better leveraged to improve interpretability. METHODS: Modern psychometric methods such as Rasch measurement theory allow PRO users to map patient progress up or down a scale over time to item benchmarks. These benchmarks represent the relative difficulty associated with each item contained in a scale. The most difficult items benchmark the best overall outcome on a scale and the least difficult items represent the worst overall outcome. The group-level effects of different treatment options can also be mapped to item benchmarks and compared with those of individual patients. DISCUSSION: The proposed method leverages the content already available in PRO instruments to improve interpretation. This approach locates both individuals (in this instance breast cancer patients undergoing surgery) and treatments (in this instance breast reconstruction techniques), on a hierarchy of health variables where each variable represents a progressively more advanced step in the recovery process. The approach can specify the aspects of a health concept where patients are currently competent, and the aspects which they might gain from a new treatment. It can also assist attempts by industry to communicate specific treatment benefits to their target audience. KEY POINTS: The method is best applied when patients need guidance about the likely benefits of different treatment options, when a PRO instrument has been developed using a modern psychometric method such as Rasch measurement theory, when there is good evidence from well-conducted studies of the group-level benefits of different treatment options, and these benefits have been measured using appropriate PROs. The method depends on good "fit" of individual patient responses to an underlying model. However, even when fit is poor it may be useful for patients to understand the "ladder" of health achievements for their condition (from the perspective of the average patient) and where different treatment options sit on this ladder.

Psychometric findings and normative values for the CLEFT-Q based on 2434 children and young adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate from 12 countries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cleft lip and/or palate can undergo numerous procedures to improve appearance, speech, dentition and hearing. We developed a cleft-specific patient-reported outcome instrument to facilitate rigorous international measurement and benchmarking. METHODS: Data were collected from patients aged 8-29 years with cleft lip and/or palate at 30 hospitals in 12 countries between October 2014 and November 2016. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to refine the scales and to examine reliability and validity. Normative CLEFT-Q values were computed for age, sex and cleft type. RESULTS: Analysis led to the refinement of an eating and drinking checklist and 12 scales measuring appearance (of the face, nose, nostrils, teeth, lips, jaws and cleft lip scar), health-related quality of life (psychological, social, school, speech distress) and speech function. All scales met the requirements of the Rasch model. Analysis to explore differential item functioning by age, sex and country provided evidence to support the use of a common scoring algorithm for each scale for international use. Lower (worse) scores on CLEFT-Q scales were associated with having a speech problem, being unhappy with facial appearance, and needing future cleft-related treatments, providing evidence of construct validity. Normative values for age, sex and cleft type showed poorer outcomes associated with older age, female sex and having a visible cleft. INTERPRETATION: The CLEFT-Q represents a rigorously developed instrument that can be used internationally to collect and compare evidence-based outcomes data from patients aged 8-29 years of age with cleft lip and/or palate.

Development and validation of a new instrument to measure perceived risks associated with the use of tobacco and nicotine-containing products.

BACKGROUND: Making tobacco products associated with lower risks available to smokers who would otherwise continue smoking is recognized as an important strategy towards addressing smoking-related harm. Predicting use behavior is an important major component of product risk assessment. In this context, risk perception is a possible factor driving tobacco product uptake and use. As prior to market launch real-world actual product use cannot be observed, assessing risk perception can provide predictive information. Considering the lack of suitable validated self-report instruments, the development of a new instrument was undertaken to quantify perceived risks of tobacco and nicotine-containing products by adult smokers, former smokers and never-smokers. METHODS: Initial items were constructed based on a literature review, focus groups and expert opinion. Data for scale formation and assessment were obtained through two successive US-based web surveys (n = 2020 and 1640 completers, respectively). Psychometric evaluation was based on Rasch Measurement Theory and Classical Test Theory. RESULTS: Psychometric evaluation supported the formation of an 18-item Perceived Health Risk scale and a 7-item Perceived Addiction Risk scale: item response option thresholds were ordered correctly for all items; item locations in each scale were spread out (coverage range 75-87%); scale reliability was supported by high person separation indices > 0.93, Cronbach's alpha > 0.98 and Corrected Item-Total Correlations > 0.88; and no differential item functioning was present. Construct validity evaluations met expectations through inter-scale correlations and findings from known-group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The Perceived Risk Instrument is a psychometrically robust instrument applicable for general and personal risk perception measurement, for use in different types of products (including cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy, potential Modified Risk Tobacco Products), and for different smoking status groups (i.e., current smokers with and without intention to quit, former smokers, never smokers).

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.