ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Anchor questions to improve patient-reported outcome measure interpretability in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty - a mixed-methods content validity, construct validity, and reliability study.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore content validity, construct validity, and reliability of anchor questions used to determine minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure (TF) in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty.
methodsA mixed-methods study from one public hospital. Evaluation of content validity involved applying thematic analysis to data from think-aloud interviews. To ascertain construct validity and reliability, we focused on patients who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2022 and had responded to preoperative and either 3-, 12- or 24-month postoperative questionnaires. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess present state bias (PSB), model fit, and reliability of the anchor questions.
resultsWe conducted 18 interviews with patients aged 52 to 84 (10 female). Based on seven emerging themes from the content validity analysis, MIC and PASS anchor questions were considered relevant and comprehensible, while the TF anchor question had several problems. Data from 1197 to 2207 patients, with 3-, 12-, or 24-month postoperative responses, were used to evaluate construct validity. The median age was 69-70 years (56-59% female). PSB for MIC was between 54 and 73%, and reliability for the anchor questions was between 0.52 and 0.80 for all time points. The CFA models varied between good and poor fit.
conclusionThe MIC and PASS anchor questions demonstrated a high degree of content validity, while it was questionable for TF. Construct validity was considered good to poor for PASS, but patients may consider their present state more than their preoperative state when responding to the MIC. Reliability was considered acceptable in both MIC and PASS.
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.