ArticlePloS one2022
Can short PROMs support valid factor-based sub-scores? Example of COMQ-12 in chronic otitis media.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInterpretable factor solutions for questionnaire instruments are typically taken as justification for use of factor-based sub-scores. They can indeed articulate content and construct validities of a total and components but do not guarantee criterion validity for clinical application. Our previous documentation of basic psychometric characteristics for a 12-item patient-reported outcome measure in adult chronic otitis media (COMQ-12) justified next appraising criterion validity of sub-scores.
methodsOn 246 cases at 1st clinic visit, we compared various classes of factor solution, concentrating on the best-fitting 3-factor ones as widely supported. Clinical data offered two independent measures as external criteria: binaural hearing (audiometric thresholds measured via audiometry) for evaluating 'Hearing' sub-score, and oto-microscopic findings for the 'Ear discharge symptoms' sub-score. As criterion for the total, and for semi-generic 'Activities/healthcare' sub-score, the generic Short Form-36 item set offered a widely used multi-item criterion measure.
resultsFactor model fit and parsimony again favoured a 3-factor solution for COMQ-12; however insufficient item support and the dominant 1st principal component of variation made sub-scoring problematic. The best solution was bi-factor, from which only the weighted total score met the declared convergent validity standard of r = 0.50. Two of the more specific sub-scores ('Ear discharge symptoms' and 'Hearing') correlated poorly with clinical findings and weighted binaural hearing thresholds.
conclusionThe COMQ-12 total is acceptably content-valid for general clinical purposes, but the small item set, reflecting excessive pressure for brevity in clinical application, does not well support three criterion-valid factor-based scores. This distinction should be made explicit, and profile sub-scoring discouraged until good convergent and furthermore divergent criterion validities are shown.
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.