ReviewSystematic reviews2016
Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures.
Review in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Needs assessment instruments for family caregivers of cancer patients receiving palliative care: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Velopharyngeal Inadequacy-Related Quality of Life Assessment: The Instrument Development and Application Review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2020Pooled it
- Measurement properties of self-report questionnaires on health-related quality of life and functional health status in dysphonia: a systematic review using the COSMIN taxonomy.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validation.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2017Pooled it
- Voice-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review of Instrument Development and Validation.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2017Pooled it
- Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Trial
- Validity and Reliability of a French Version of the Empty Nose Syndrome 6-Item Questionnaire.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Assess Surgical Interventions for Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Stress Urinary Incontinence and Mesh Complications: A Scoping Review for the Development of the APPRAISE PROM.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Assessment of Dental Fear and Anxiety Tools for Children: A Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Dual Assessment of Suicidal Risk: Integrating the Clinician-Administered CHRT-Beh and Self-Report CHRT-SRNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Article
- Assessing the parent-infant relationship: a two-stage, COSMIN-informed systematic review evaluating clinician-rated measures.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Screening instruments for mental disorders in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol (SCREENING-MD).BMJ open · 2024Article
- Reliability of a Smartphone App to Objectively Monitor Performance Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMISJournal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Validity of a Smartphone App to Objectively Monitor Performance Outcomes in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Preliminary Findings From a Longitudinal Observational Study.JMIR neurotechnology · 2024Article
- Assessment of structural and cross-cultural validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire: a scoping review.Hand therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to advance a checklist of evaluative criteria designed to assess patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures' developmental measurement properties and applicability, which can be used by systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with a varied range of expertise in psychometric measure development methodology.
methodsA directed literature search was performed to identify original studies, textbooks, consensus guidelines, and published reports that propose criteria for assessing the quality of PRO measures. Recommendations from these sources were iteratively distilled into a checklist of key attributes. Preliminary items underwent evaluation through 24 cognitive interviews with clinicians and quantitative researchers. Six measurement theory methodological novices independently applied the final checklist to assess six PRO measures encompassing a variety of methods, applications, and clinical constructs. Agreement between novice and expert scores was assessed.
resultsThe distillation process yielded an 18-item checklist with six domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (5) scoring and interpretation, and (6) respondent burden and presentation. With minimal instruction, good agreement in checklist item ratings was achieved between quantitative researchers with expertise in measurement theory and less experienced clinicians (mean kappa 0.70; range 0.66-0.87).
conclusionsWe present a simplified checklist that can help guide systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with varied measurement theory expertise to evaluate the strengths and weakness of candidate PRO measures' developmental properties and the appropriateness for specific applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.