Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40705225›Full record

ReviewThe patient2025

Cognitive Interviews: Recommendations for Best Practices in Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) Measure Development and Validation.

Keith A Meadows, Nur Ferrante, Tomislav Geršić

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese CancerSupportSourceHealth and quality of life outcomes · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Keith A MeadowsHealth Outcomes Insights Ltd, Oxfordshire, UK. keith@healthoutinsights.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6097-0621
Nur FerranteArt of Diversity, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID 0009-0009-6551-5826
Tomislav GeršićFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.ORCID 0009-0005-0916-8189

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive interviewing is a technique that can be used to improve and refine questionnaire items. Cognitive interviewing is now a commonly used method to improve the reliability and validity of clinical outcome assessment instruments by identifying problems respondents have in understanding and answering the draft questionnaire items, and then to revise the items to improve understanding and response accuracy. Although practitioners are in general agreement regarding the basic principles and aims of the cognitive interview, there is considerable variation in practitioners' approaches. The aim of this paper is to put forward a few recommendations regarding best practice in the application of cognitive interviews as part of the developmental process of clinical outcome assessment instruments. The paper is structured in order that each section addresses a discrete and key element of the cognitive interview process that ranges from selecting the appropriate methodology, development of the interview guide, interviewer recruitment and training, and determining sample size through to approaches for analysis and writing the cognitive interview report. Each element of the cognitive interview process is divided into (1) the rational underpinning the methodology; (2) the recommended procedural steps; and (3) an overview of lessons learnt from previous research.

Indexed as

CognitionInterviews as TopicOutcome Assessment, Health CareHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.