ReviewThe patient2025
Cognitive Interviews: Recommendations for Best Practices in Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) Measure Development and Validation.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring methodology for investigating Chinese coronary artery disease patient values and preferences: A methodological study protocol.Global health research and policy · 2026Article
- Portuguese Version of the MISSCARE Survey-Patient: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Qualitative testing of potential modifications to the EQ-HWB-9 in the United Kingdom.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese CancerSupportSourceHealth and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Enhancing Face Validity Using Cognitive Interviewing Techniques: Applying Tourangeau's Framework to the Nursing Talent Identification Scale.Journal of caring sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Swedish translation of the type 1 diabetes specific health-related quality of life questionnaire in young adults.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40705225What 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.