medigraphic.com
ISSN 1405-1699 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Alergia, Asma e Inmunología Pediátrica y de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Pediatría

2022, Number 1

<< Back

Alerg Asma Inmunol Pediatr 2022; 31 (1)

Interpretation and evaluation of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes

Cruz-Peralta A, Herrera-Alarcón V

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 27-31
PDF size: 157.23 Kb.


ABSTRACT

To measure people's health condition we have physical instruments such as scales, thermometer, sphygmomanometer, etc., however, when it is required to measure quality of life, satisfaction, pain, depression and other characteristics with different degrees of subjectivity, we use questionnaires, indices, scales or inventories. The instruments patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are questionnaires or scales that collect the perception of the health condition of a patient, directly from himself; without interpretation by a clinician or anyone else. These instruments must have certain measurement properties that guarantee an adequate measurement. Reliability informs about the precision of measurements, validity about accuracy. Responsiveness applies only to instruments that measure change. Another important aspect is their relevance to the population and context of the measurement, in addition, their scores must have characteristics that allow the result of their application to be clearly interpreted. To compare the results of patients with cultural or idiomatic differences, it is necessary to carry out an adaptation of the instrument.


REFERENCES

  1. Lara-Muñoz MC, Ortega-Soto H. ¿La clinimetría o la psicometría? Medición en la práctica psiquiátrica. Salud Ment. 1995; 18 (4): 33-40. Disponible en: http://www.revistasaludmental.mx/index.php/salud_mental/rt/metadata/574/0

  2. Lara-Muñoz MC. Psiquiatría-4. México: Intersistemas SA de CV; 2003. Disponible en: https://es.slideshare.net/iniberto69/evaluacion-clinica-en-psiquiatria-pac

  3. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ et al. Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1-eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Heal. 2011; 14 (8): 967-977. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014.

  4. Walton MK, Powers JH, Hobart J et al. Clinical outcome assessments: conceptual foundation-report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment-emerging good practices for outcomes research task force. Value Heal. 2015; 18 (6): 741-752. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.006.

  5. Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Heal. 2009; 12 (8): 1075-1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00603.x.

  6. Viola K, Nijsten T, Krishnamurthy K. "Validation" of outcome measures in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol. 2013; 133 (10): 1-4. doi: 10.1038/jid.2013.332.

  7. Alarcón MAM, Muñoz N S. Medición en salud: Algunas consideraciones metodológicas. Rev Med Chil. 2008; 136 (1): 125-130. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872008000100016.

  8. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60 (1): 34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

  9. Powers JH, Patrick DL, Walton MK et al. Clinician-reported outcome assessments of treatment benefit: report of the ISPOR clinical outcome assessment emerging good practices task force. Value Heal. 2017; 20 (1): 2-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.005.

  10. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21 (4): 651-657. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.

  11. Herdman M, Fernández N. Los resultados comunicados por los pacientes en los ensayos clínicos. Lo importante para el paciente es lo que él percibe. En: Dal-Ré R, Carné X, Gracia D. Luces y sombras en la investigación clínica. Madrid: TRIACASTELA; 2013. pp. 325-346. Disponible en: https://www.fundaciogrifols.org/documents/4662337/4688901/cap12.pdf/873460ff-b4a2-407b-b0bd-fc5db5d2d102

  12. Argimon Pallás JM, Jiménez Villa J. Diseño de cuestionarios. En: Argimon JM, Jiménez Villa J. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiología. 2a ed. Barcelona, España: Hacourt; 2000. pp. 155-166.

  13. Hernández-Sampieri R, Fernández-Collado C BP. Recolección de los datos cuantitativos. En: Metodología de la investigación. 4a ed. México: McGraw Hill; 2008. pp. 292-319.

  14. Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, Martínez M, Sanz Rubiales Á. ¿Cómo validar un instrumento de medida de la salud? An Sist Sanit Navar. 2011; 34 (1): 63-72. doi: 10.4321/S1137-66272011000100007.

  15. Sánchez R, Echeverry J. Validación de escalas de medición en salud. Rev Salud Pública. 2004; 6 (302): 302-318. doi: 10.1590/S0124-00642004000300006.

  16. Rajeswaran J, Blackstone EH. Patient-reported outcomes and importance of their appropriate statistical analyses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 150 (3): 461-462. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.07.043.

  17. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19 (1): 231-240.

  18. Prieto G, Delgado AR. Fiabilidad y validez. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2010; 31 (1): 67-74. doi: 10.4067/S0718-09342002005100014.

  19. Streiner DL. Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesn't matter. J Pers Assess. 2003; 80 (3): 217-222. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8003_01.

  20. Campo-Arias A, Oviedo HC. Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Rev Salud Pública. 2008; 10 (5): 831-839. doi: 10.1590/S0124-00642008000500015.

  21. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27 (5): 1159-1170. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0.

  22. Cruz-Avelar A, Cruz-Peralta ES. Metodología para la construcción de instrumentos de medición en salud. Alergia Asma Inmunol Pediatr. 2017; 26 (3): 100-105.

  23. Talavera JO, Wacher-Rodarte NH, Rivas-Ruiz R. Estudios de proceso (prueba diagnóstica). Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2011; 49 (2): 163-170. Disponible en: http://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/imss/im-2011/im112k.pdf

  24. Magnusson D. Validez. En: Magnusson D, editor. Teoría de tests: psicometría diferencial, psicología aplicada, orientación vocacional. 2a ed. México: Trillas; 1990. pp. 237-267.

  25. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

  26. Peralta-Pedrero ML, Herrera-Bringas D, Torres-González KS, Morales-Sánchez MA, Jurado Santa-Cruz F, Cruz-Avelar A. Development and validation of a new scoring tool to evaluate the clinical evolution of adult patients with nonsegmental vitiligo. Dermatology. 2021; 237 (6): 952-960. doi: 10.1159/000511890.

  27. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Validity. In: Streiner DL, editor. Health measurement scales. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989. pp. 11-18.

  28. Polit DF. Assessing measurement in health: Beyond reliability and validity. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52: 1746-1753. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.07.002.

  29. Ortiz-Gutiérrez S, Cruz-Avelar A. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of health assessment tools. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2018; 109: 202-206. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adengl.2018.02.003




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com