Exploring how to evaluate a qualitative patient-centered outcome measure: literature review and illustrative example – a Perthes child-friendly measure

References

• Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11;193–205.12074258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2005;9(10):1–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farnik M, Pierzchała W. Instrument development and evaluation for patient-related outcome assessments. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:1–7. doi:10.2147/PROM.S1440522915979
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(12):1341–1345.1460470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH. Measuring health-related quality of life: general issues. Can Respir J. 1997;4(3):123–130. doi:10.1155/1997/271269
   Google Scholar
• Long AF, Dixon P. Monitoring outcomes in routine practice: defining appropriate measurement criteria. J Eval Clin Pract. 1996;2:71–78.9238577
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Brettle AJ, Grant MJ. Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 1998;4:339–350.9927249
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Donovan JL, Frankel S, Eyels JD. Assessing the need for health status measures. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993;47:158–162. doi:10.1136/jech.47.2.1588326276
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolcott HF. Ethnography: A Way of Seeing. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. London: Sage; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Leo DG, Murphy R, Gambling T, Long AF, Jones H, Perry DC. Perspectives on the social, physical and emotional impact of living with Perthes’ disease in children and their family: a mixed methods study. Glob Pediatr Health. 2019;6:1–10. doi:10.1177/2333794X19835235
   Google Scholar
• Hak A, Willems R, van der Wal G, Visser F. A qualitative validation of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:417–426. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000018487.35591.6e15085914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter G. A comparative discussion of the notion of ‘validity’ in qualitative and quantitative research. Qual Rep. 2000;4(3/4):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 2000;39(3):124–131. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2003;8(4):597–607.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, Stauffer JW, Hays RD. The Mayo/FDA patient-reported outcomes consensus meeting group. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health. 2007;10(Suppl 2):S94–S105. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x17995479
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zumbo BD. Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice In: Lissetz RW, editor. The Concept of Validity: Revisions, New Directions and Applications. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.; 2009:65–82.
   Google Scholar
• Gadermann AM, Guhn M, Zumbo BD. Investigating the substantive aspect of construct validity for the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children: a focus on cognitive processes. Soc Indic Res. 2011;100(1):37–60. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9603-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubley AM, Zumbo BD. Response processes in the context of validity: setting the scene. In Zumbo BD, Hubley AM, editors. Understanding and Investigating Response Processes in Validation Research Social Indicators Research Series 69, Springer International Publishing AG; 2017:1-12.
   Google Scholar
• Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x15804318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1263–1278. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9540-919784865
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luyt R. A framework for mixing methods in quantitative measurement development, validation, and revision: a case study. J Mix Methods Res. 2011;6(4):294–316. doi:10.1177/1558689811427912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adcock R, Collier D. Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2001;95:529–546. doi:10.1017/S0003055401003100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasch KE, Vigneux M, Abetz L, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1087–1096. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9655-z20512662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung KKF, Clark AM. Qualitative methods and patient-reported outcomes: measures development and adaptation. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16:1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallinson S. Listening to respondents: a qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:11–21. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00003-x11820675
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viswanathan M, Sudman S, Johnson M. Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response. Implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products. J Bus Res. 2004;57:108–124. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00296-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breyer BN, Edwards TC, Patrick DL, Voelzke BB. Comprehensive qualitative assessment of urethral stricture disease: toward the development of a patient centered outcome. J Urol. 2007;198:1113–1118. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardesty DM, Bearden WO. The use of expert judges in scale development: implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. J Bus Res. 2004;57:98–107. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremeens J, Eiser C, Blades M. Characteristics of health-related self-report measures for children aged three to eight years: a review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(4):739–754. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-4184-x16688506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremeens J, Eiser C, Blades M. A qualitative investigation of school-aged children’s answers to items from a generic quality of life measure. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33(1):83–89. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00665.x17181757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acaster S, Dickerhoof R, DeBusk K, Bernard K, Strauss W, Allen LF. Qualitative and quantitative validation of the FACIT-fatigue scale in iron deficiency anemia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:60.25980742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleanthous S, Isenberg DA, Newman SP, Cano SJ. Patient Uncertainty Questionnaire Rheumatology (PUQ-R): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a mixed methods study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(33):1–14. doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0404-426744040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483. doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-000021593914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305(6846):160–164. doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6846.1601285753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Patient’s self-assessment of their congestive heart failure: content, reliability, and validity of a new measure: the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Heart Fail. 1987;3:198–219.
   Google Scholar
• Morcillo C, Aguado O, Delas J, Rosell F. Utility of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire for assessing quality of life in heart failure patients. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2007;60(10):1093–1096. doi:10.1157/1311124217953932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billbao A, Escobar A, Garcia-Perez L, Navarr G, Quiros R. The Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: comparison of different factor structures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:23. doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0426-626887590
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry DC. Unravelling the enigma of Perthes disease. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95:311–316. doi:10.1308/003588413X1362996004619223838491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hailer YD, Haag AC, Nilsson O. Legg-Calvé Perthes’ disease: quality of life, physical activity, and behaviour pattern. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34:514–521. doi:10.1097/BPO.000000000000015724787306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision making in the medical encounter: what does it mean (or it takes two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–692. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-39032835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision-making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Exp. 2006;9:307–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long AF, Gambling T. Enhancing health literacy and behavioural change within a tele-care education and support intervention for people with type 2 diabetes. Health Exp. 2011;15:267–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar