Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting

Susan Magasi, Gery Ryan, Dennis Revicki, William Lenderking, Ron D. Hays, Meryl Brod, Claire Snyder, Maarten Boers, David Cella

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement. Under the auspices of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative, a working meeting on content validity was convened with leading PRO measurement experts. Platform presentations and participant discussion highlighted key issues in the content validity debate, including inconsistency in the definition and evaluation of content validity, the need for empirical research to support methodological approaches to the evaluation of content validity, and concerns that continual re-evaluation of content validity slows the pace of science and leads to the proliferation of study-specific PROs. We advocate an approach to the evaluation of content validity, which includes meticulously documented qualitative and advanced quantitative methods. To advance the science of content validity in PROs, we recommend (1) development of a consensus definition of content validity; (2) development of content validity guidelines that delineate the role of qualitative and quantitative methods and the integration of multiple perspectives; (3) empirical evaluation of generalizability of content validity across applications; and (4) use of generic measures as the foundation for PROs assessment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)739-746
Number of pages8
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume21
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Information Systems
Empirical Research
Publications
Consensus
Industry
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Content validity
  • PRO development
  • Qualitative research
  • Quantitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Magasi, S., Ryan, G., Revicki, D., Lenderking, W., Hays, R. D., Brod, M., ... Cella, D. (2012). Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Quality of Life Research, 21(5), 739-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8

Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures : Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. / Magasi, Susan; Ryan, Gery; Revicki, Dennis; Lenderking, William; Hays, Ron D.; Brod, Meryl; Snyder, Claire; Boers, Maarten; Cella, David.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 21, No. 5, 06.2012, p. 739-746.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Magasi, S, Ryan, G, Revicki, D, Lenderking, W, Hays, RD, Brod, M, Snyder, C, Boers, M & Cella, D 2012, 'Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting', Quality of Life Research, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 739-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8
Magasi, Susan ; Ryan, Gery ; Revicki, Dennis ; Lenderking, William ; Hays, Ron D. ; Brod, Meryl ; Snyder, Claire ; Boers, Maarten ; Cella, David. / Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures : Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. In: Quality of Life Research. 2012 ; Vol. 21, No. 5. pp. 739-746.
@article{652a0c5ec392435d914b6cb46a083633,
title = "Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting",
abstract = "Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement. Under the auspices of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative, a working meeting on content validity was convened with leading PRO measurement experts. Platform presentations and participant discussion highlighted key issues in the content validity debate, including inconsistency in the definition and evaluation of content validity, the need for empirical research to support methodological approaches to the evaluation of content validity, and concerns that continual re-evaluation of content validity slows the pace of science and leads to the proliferation of study-specific PROs. We advocate an approach to the evaluation of content validity, which includes meticulously documented qualitative and advanced quantitative methods. To advance the science of content validity in PROs, we recommend (1) development of a consensus definition of content validity; (2) development of content validity guidelines that delineate the role of qualitative and quantitative methods and the integration of multiple perspectives; (3) empirical evaluation of generalizability of content validity across applications; and (4) use of generic measures as the foundation for PROs assessment.",
keywords = "Content validity, PRO development, Qualitative research, Quantitative research",
author = "Susan Magasi and Gery Ryan and Dennis Revicki and William Lenderking and Hays, {Ron D.} and Meryl Brod and Claire Snyder and Maarten Boers and David Cella",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "739--746",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures

T2 - Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting

AU - Magasi, Susan

AU - Ryan, Gery

AU - Revicki, Dennis

AU - Lenderking, William

AU - Hays, Ron D.

AU - Brod, Meryl

AU - Snyder, Claire

AU - Boers, Maarten

AU - Cella, David

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement. Under the auspices of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative, a working meeting on content validity was convened with leading PRO measurement experts. Platform presentations and participant discussion highlighted key issues in the content validity debate, including inconsistency in the definition and evaluation of content validity, the need for empirical research to support methodological approaches to the evaluation of content validity, and concerns that continual re-evaluation of content validity slows the pace of science and leads to the proliferation of study-specific PROs. We advocate an approach to the evaluation of content validity, which includes meticulously documented qualitative and advanced quantitative methods. To advance the science of content validity in PROs, we recommend (1) development of a consensus definition of content validity; (2) development of content validity guidelines that delineate the role of qualitative and quantitative methods and the integration of multiple perspectives; (3) empirical evaluation of generalizability of content validity across applications; and (4) use of generic measures as the foundation for PROs assessment.

AB - Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has been a focus of debate since the 2006 publication of the U.S. FDA Draft Guidance for Industry in Patient Reported Outcome Measurement. Under the auspices of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative, a working meeting on content validity was convened with leading PRO measurement experts. Platform presentations and participant discussion highlighted key issues in the content validity debate, including inconsistency in the definition and evaluation of content validity, the need for empirical research to support methodological approaches to the evaluation of content validity, and concerns that continual re-evaluation of content validity slows the pace of science and leads to the proliferation of study-specific PROs. We advocate an approach to the evaluation of content validity, which includes meticulously documented qualitative and advanced quantitative methods. To advance the science of content validity in PROs, we recommend (1) development of a consensus definition of content validity; (2) development of content validity guidelines that delineate the role of qualitative and quantitative methods and the integration of multiple perspectives; (3) empirical evaluation of generalizability of content validity across applications; and (4) use of generic measures as the foundation for PROs assessment.

KW - Content validity

KW - PRO development

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Quantitative research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863634388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863634388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8

DO - 10.1007/s11136-011-9990-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 21866374

AN - SCOPUS:84863634388

VL - 21

SP - 739

EP - 746

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 5

ER -