Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19784865›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2009

Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience.

Meryl Brod, Laura E Tesler, Torsten L Christensen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03567239 (Evaluating the Impact of Custom Assistive and Adaptive Technology), which is not on this map. Cited by 341 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
341citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03567239 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Impact of Custom Assistive and Adaptive Technology

TypeinterventionalSponsorMadonna Rehabilitation HospitalRan2018 to 2020Enrolled5ConditionsDisability Physical, Brain Injuries, Stroke, Spinal Cord InjuriesArmsUsing adaptive device.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

341 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Investigating child self-report capacity: a systematic review and utility analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development and Initial Validation of the Quality of life Evaluation inmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

281 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Meryl BrodThe Brod Group, 219 Julia Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941, USA. mbrod@thebrodgroup.net
Laura E Tesler
Torsten L Christensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEstablishing content validity for both new and existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is central to a scientifically sound instrument development process. Methodological and logistical issues present a challenge in regard to determining the best practices for establishing content validity.

methodsThis paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding qualitative research to establish content validity based on the scientific methodological literature and authors' experience.

resultsConceptual issues and frameworks for qualitative interview research, developing the interview discussion guide, reaching saturation, analysis of data, developing a theoretical model, item generation and cognitive debriefing are presented. Suggestions are offered for dealing with logistical issues regarding facilitator qualifications, ethics approval, sample recruitment, group logistics, taping and transcribing interviews, honoraria and documenting content validity.

conclusionsIt is hoped this paper will stimulate further discussion regarding best practices for establishing content validity so that, as the PRO field moves forward, qualitative research can be evaluated for quality and acceptability according to scientifically established principles.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeQualitative ResearchFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.