Psychometric validation of PROM instruments: Article four in a series of ten
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Psychometric validation of PROM instruments : Article four in a series of ten. / Christensen, Karl B.; Comins, Jonathan D.; Krogsgaard, Michael R.; Brodersen, John; Jensen, Jonas; Hansen, Christian Fugl; Kreiner, Svend.
In: Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2021, p. 1225-1238.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychometric validation of PROM instruments
T2 - Article four in a series of ten
AU - Christensen, Karl B.
AU - Comins, Jonathan D.
AU - Krogsgaard, Michael R.
AU - Brodersen, John
AU - Jensen, Jonas
AU - Hansen, Christian Fugl
AU - Kreiner, Svend
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - classical test theory
KW - confirmatory factor analyses
KW - construct validity
KW - differential item functioning
KW - modern test theory
KW - patient-reported outcome measures
KW - psychometric validation
KW - Rasch analyses
U2 - 10.1111/sms.13908
DO - 10.1111/sms.13908
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 33341986
AN - SCOPUS:85099258825
VL - 31
SP - 1225
EP - 1238
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
SN - 0905-7188
IS - 6
ER -
ID: 256570036