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

2017, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Alerg Asma Inmunol Pediatr 2017; 26 (3)

Methodology for the construction of health measurement instruments

Cruz-Avelar A, Cruz-Peralta ES

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 100-105
PDF size: 172.45 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Measuring instruments such as scales, indices and questionnaires are used to qualify or quantify attributes, qualities, properties or constructs (completely theoretical concepts), which is impossible to measure or quantify otherwise. Preparation: Before proceeding to measure something, we must define clearly and precisely what we want to measure, this is to define the construct. The objective of the measurement of the construct must be made explicit, answering the question: what do we want to measure it for? And the next question, in whom do we want to measure it? Elaboration of the instrument: With respect to the role to be played by the instrument, specific methodological considerations will be required. For the elaboration of the first draft, the indicators that the scientific evidence endorses as representatives of the construct are identified. Procedures for determining reliability and validity: Internal consistency, test-retest, inter-rater variability. Face validity, content, construct and criteria.


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. http://www.revistasaludmental.mx/ index.php/salud_mental/rt/metadata/574/0.

  2. Jenicek M. Identificación de los casos de enfermedad. Clinicometría y diagnóstico. In: Epidemiología. La Lógica de La Medicina Moderna; 1996, pp. 79-120.

  3. Lara-Muñoz MC. Psiquiatría-4. Editorial Intersistemas SA de CV, México: Asociación Psiquiátrica Mexicana AC; 2003. Disponible en: https://es.slideshare.net/iniberto69/ evaluacion-clinica-en-psiquiatria-pac.

  4. Argimon Pallás JM, Jiménez Villa J. Diseño de cuestionarios. In: Hacourt, ed. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. 2a ed. Es: Hacourt; 2000. pp. 155-166.

  5. Arribas M. Diseño y validación de cuestionarios. Matronas Profesión. 2004; 5(17): 23-29. http://www.enferpro.com/ documentos/validacion_cuestionarios.pdf.

  6. McKenna SP. Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Med. 2011; 9: 86. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741- 7015/9/86%0AAuthorship.

  7. Powers JH 3rd., Patrick DL, Walton MK, Marquis P, Cano S, Hobart J et al. Clinician-reported outcome assessments of treatment benefit: report of the ISPOR clinical outcome assessment emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2017; 20(1): 2-14. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.005.

  8. Alarcón AM, Muñoz S. Medición en salud: algunas consideraciones metodológicas Some methodological issues about measurements in health. Rev Med Chile. 2008; 136: 125-130. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872008000100016.

  9. Streiner DL. A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scales. Can J Psychiatry. 1993; 38 (2): 140-148.

  10. Hernández-Sampieri R, Fernández-Collado C BP. Recolección de los datos cuantitativos. In: McGrawHill, ed. Metodología de La Investigación. 4ta ed. México; 2008. pp. 92-319.

  11. 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 2 - Assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011; 14 (8): 978-988. doi: 10.1016/j. jval.2011.06.013.

  12. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E 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 Health. 2011; 14 (8): 967-977. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014.

  13. Kaplan RM. Pruebas psicológicas : principios, aplicaciones y temas. 6a ed. (Thomson, ed.). México, D.F.; 2006.

  14. Rudner ML, Schafer WD. What teachers need to know about assessment. Washington, D.C.:; 2002. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/237666611_What_Teachers_ Need_to_Know_about_Assessment.

  15. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, De Vet HC. 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.

  16. Prieto G, Delgado AR. Fiabilidad y validez [Reliability and Validity]. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2010; 31 (1): 67-74. doi: 10.4067/S0718-09342002005100014.

  17. T erwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, 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.

  18. Morales-Sánchez MA, Peralta-Pedrero ML, Domínguez- Gómez MA. Validation of a questionnaire to quantify the risk for skin cancer. Gac Med Mex. 2014; 150 (5) 409-419.

  19. Lifshitz A, Talavera JO, Rivas-Ruiz R. Estudios de proceso (prueba diagnóstica). In: Investigación clínica: en busca de la certidumbre. 2013; 51: 16-23. http://revistamedica.imss.gob. mx/es/system/files/recurso_diverso/rm2013-suplemento1- completo_0.pdf.

  20. Polit DF. Assessing measurement in health: beyond reliability and validity. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52 (11): 1746-1753. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.07.002.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com