Anthoine Emmanuelle, Moret Leïla, Regnault Antoine, Sébille Véronique, Hardouin Jean-Benoit
Public Health Department, University Hospital of Nantes, 85, rue Saint Jacques, 44093, Nantes Cedex 1, France.
EA 4275 SPHERE "bioStatistics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Human sciEnces Research tEam", University of Nantes, 1, rue Gaston Veil, 44035, Nantes Cedex 1, France.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Dec 9;12:176. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2.
New patient reported outcome (PRO) measures are regularly developed to assess various aspects of the patients' perspective on their disease and treatment. For these instruments to be useful in clinical research, they must undergo a proper psychometric validation, including demonstration of cross-sectional and longitudinal measurement properties. This quantitative evaluation requires a study to be conducted on an appropriate sample size. The aim of this research was to list and describe practices in PRO and proxy PRO primary psychometric validation studies, focusing primarily on the practices used to determine sample size.
A literature review of articles published in PubMed between January 2009 and September 2011 was conducted. Three selection criteria were applied including a search strategy, an article selection strategy, and data extraction. Agreements between authors were assessed, and practices of validation were described.
Data were extracted from 114 relevant articles. Within these, sample size determination was low (9.6%, 11/114), and were reported as either an arbitrary minimum sample size (n = 2), a subject to item ratio (n = 4), or the method was not explicitly stated (n = 5). Very few articles (4%, 5/114) compared a posteriori their sample size to a subject to item ratio. Content validity, construct validity, criterion validity and internal consistency were the most frequently measurement properties assessed in the validation studies. Approximately 92% of the articles reported a subject to item ratio greater than or equal to 2, whereas 25% had a ratio greater than or equal to 20. About 90% of articles had a sample size greater than or equal to 100, whereas 7% had a sample size greater than or equal to 1000.
The sample size determination for psychometric validation studies is rarely ever justified a priori. This emphasizes the lack of clear scientifically sound recommendations on this topic. Existing methods to determine the sample size needed to assess the various measurement properties of interest should be made more easily available.
新的患者报告结局(PRO)测量工具经常被开发出来,以评估患者对其疾病和治疗的各个方面的看法。为了使这些工具在临床研究中有用,它们必须经过适当的心理测量学验证,包括横断面和纵向测量特性的证明。这种定量评估需要对适当的样本量进行研究。本研究的目的是列出并描述PRO和代理PRO主要心理测量学验证研究中的做法,主要关注用于确定样本量的做法。
对2009年1月至2011年9月在PubMed上发表的文章进行文献综述。应用了三个选择标准,包括搜索策略、文章选择策略和数据提取。评估了作者之间的一致性,并描述了验证做法。
从114篇相关文章中提取了数据。其中,样本量确定的比例较低(9.6%,11/114),报告的方式要么是任意的最小样本量(n = 2),要么是受试者与项目的比例(n = 4),要么未明确说明方法(n = 5)。很少有文章(4%,5/114)将其后验样本量与受试者与项目的比例进行比较。内容效度、结构效度、标准效度和内部一致性是验证研究中最常评估的测量特性。大约92%的文章报告的受试者与项目的比例大于或等于2,而25%的比例大于或等于20。约90%的文章样本量大于或等于100,而7%的文章样本量大于或等于1000。
心理测量学验证研究的样本量确定很少有先验的合理性。这强调了在这个主题上缺乏明确的科学合理的建议。应更方便地提供现有方法,以确定评估各种感兴趣的测量特性所需的样本量。