ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Thinking-aloud methodology applied to health questionnaire development and validation: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
backgroundThe development of valid and reliable health questionnaires relies on respondents' accurate comprehension of items. The thinking-aloud (TA) technique, where participants verbalize their thought processes while answering survey questions, offers a powerful means to explore cognitive mechanisms underlying response behaviour. Despite its wide use, there is no consensus on how TA protocols should be designed, conducted, and analysed.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to map methodological approaches applied to TA in health-related questionnaire development and validation, describe their variability, and critically examine current methodological practices to inform future research.
designPubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched on July 17, 2025, without time limits. Eligible studies were original articles in English applying TA for questionnaire validation, including assessment of content, face, construct validity, or comprehensibility. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data using a standardized charting form. An operational criterion was used to judge the completeness of methodological reporting. Data were synthesized narratively and tabulated to describe study purposes, TA typologies, analytical strategies, and theoretical frameworks.
resultsFrom 1,678 retrieved records, 210 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 84 provided complete methodological descriptions. Most of the 84 studies involved patients (48%) and used concurrent TA (48%), with frequent prompting (55%) and probing (48%). Sessions were mainly face-to-face (71%), audio recorded (64%), and transcribed verbatim. Thematic (38%) and content (26%) analyses predominated, often supported by NVivo. The Survey Response Model was the most cited theoretical framework (26%), though 22% of studies lacked any theoretical reference. Coding strategies were mixed (36%), and about half of the studies reported questionnaire revisions after analysis.
conclusionsTA remains a versatile but methodologically fragmented approach in questionnaire validation. The lack of standardization limits comparability and interpretability across studies. Greater transparency in reporting and explicit theoretical framing are recommended to improve methodological rigor. REGISTRATION: The review followed the PRISMA-ScR framework and was prospectively registered on OSF (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AZY3 ).
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.