Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29098607›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2018

Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it?

Niels Smits, L Andries van der Ark, Judith M Conijn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A novel CAT method for QoL screening: proof-of-principle study with comparisons to standard methods.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Psychometric evaluation of a patient-reported item bank for healthcare engagement.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Methods for questionnaire design: a taxonomy linking procedures to test goals.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Introduction to special section: test construction.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
  13. Some recommendations for developing multidimensional computerized adaptive tests for patient-reported outcomes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
  14. Leading indicators of readiness among the general Army and Special Operations Forces: Predictive and psychometric analysis of the Global Assessment Tool.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association
    Article
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.

Niels SmitsResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.smits@uva.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-3669-9266
L Andries van der ArkResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith M ConijnResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo important goals when using questionnaires are (a) measurement: the questionnaire is constructed to assign numerical values that accurately represent the test taker's attribute, and (b) prediction: the questionnaire is constructed to give an accurate forecast of an external criterion. Construction methods aimed at measurement prescribe that items should be reliable. In practice, this leads to questionnaires with high inter-item correlations. By contrast, construction methods aimed at prediction typically prescribe that items have a high correlation with the criterion and low inter-item correlations. The latter approach has often been said to produce a paradox concerning the relation between reliability and validity [1-3], because it is often assumed that good measurement is a prerequisite of good prediction.

objectiveTo answer four questions: (1) Why are measurement-based methods suboptimal for questionnaires that are used for prediction? (2) How should one construct a questionnaire that is used for prediction? (3) Do questionnaire-construction methods that optimize measurement and prediction lead to the selection of different items in the questionnaire? (4) Is it possible to construct a questionnaire that can be used for both measurement and prediction? ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: An empirical data set consisting of scores of 242 respondents on questionnaire items measuring mental health is used to select items by means of two methods: a method that optimizes the predictive value of the scale (i.e., forecast a clinical diagnosis), and a method that optimizes the reliability of the scale. We show that for the two scales different sets of items are selected and that a scale constructed to meet the one goal does not show optimal performance with reference to the other goal. DISCUSSION: The answers are as follows: (1) Because measurement-based methods tend to maximize inter-item correlations by which predictive validity reduces. (2) Through selecting items that correlate highly with the criterion and lowly with the remaining items. (3) Yes, these methods may lead to different item selections. (4) For a single questionnaire: Yes, but it is problematic because reliability cannot be estimated accurately. For a test battery: Yes, but it is very costly. Implications for the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires are discussed.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsMeasurementPredictionPredictive validityTest construction methods

Identifiers

PMID29098607
PMCPMC5997739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.