Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42250158›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026

Developing a validity testing plan for a patient-reported outcome measure in a new context using the argument-based approach to validity.

Scott W Gill, Christina Cheng, Julia Bowman, Gerald Elsworth, Caron Shaw, Richard H Osborne, Melanie Hawkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Scott W GillGlobal Health and Equity Development Hub, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. scott.gill@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0427-1639
Christina ChengGlobal Health and Equity Development Hub, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8950-7689
Julia BowmanGlobal Health and Equity Development Hub, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Gerald ElsworthGlobal Health and Equity Development Hub, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1037-9590
Caron ShawCorporate Services, Clinical Excellence Commission, Sydney, Australia.
Richard H OsborneGlobal Health and Equity Development Hub, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9081-2699
Melanie HawkinsGlobal Health and Equity Development Hub, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5704-0490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health-related measures, such as Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), are widely used in clinical practice, research, service evaluation, and decision-making. Validity is about the extent to which a score interpretation is supported by evidence for a specific use in a specific context. The argument-based approach to validity provides a systematic way of planning and undertaking validity testing and is gaining attention in health-related measurement, yet few practical examples of its application exist. This commentary firstly describes the phases and steps of the argument-based approach to validity. Secondly, it brings the theory into practice by presenting a worked example that illustrates how to apply the argument-based approach to validity to develop a validity testing plan for the application of a widely used health literacy PROM in a new context. Importantly, the validity testing plan outlines the underpinning assumptions that need investigation to determine the extent to which we can have confidence in the interpretation and use of Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) scores in the New South Wales prison context. The commentary offers a practical exemplar for identifying assumptions, evidence needs and methodological options to support validity testing and to develop an evidence-based argument to verify score interpretation and use in a specific context. The validity testing planning process described and demonstrated in this paper will support the uptake of this approach and promote scientific rigour in health-related measurement.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesArgument-based approach to validityHealth Literacy QuestionnaireHLQPatient-reported outcome measuresPrisonsValidityValidity testing plan

Identifiers

PMID42250158
PMCPMC13242489

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.