Suppr超能文献

《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》关联与认知访谈是优化结局指标内容效度的互补方法:综合方法综述

ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review.

作者信息

MacDermid Joy C

机构信息

Department of Surgery, School of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Centre, London, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Front Rehabil Sci. 2021 Oct 14;2:702596. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2021.702596. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Content validity is a fundamental requirement of outcome measures. After reviewing operational needs and existing definitions, content validity we as defined as: the extent to which a measure provides a comprehensive and true assessment of the key relevant elements of a specified construct or attribute across a defined range, clearly and equitably for a stated target audience and context. ICF linkage rules from 2002, 2005, and 2019 have provide increasingly clear processes for describing and evaluating content of outcome measures. ICF Core Sets provide international reference standards of the core constructs of importance for different health conditions. Both are important as reference standards during content validation. To summarize their use as reference standards, the following summary indicators were proposed: (1) Measure to ICF linkage, (2) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Absolute Linkage, (3) Measure to (Brief or Comprehensive) Core Set Unique Linkage, (4) Core Set Representation, and (5) Core Set Unique Disability Representation. Methods to assess how respondents engage with content are needed to complement ICF-linking. Cognitive interviewing is an ideal method since it used to explore how respondents interpret and calibrate response to individual items on an outcome measure. We proposed a framework for classifying these responses: Clarity/Comprehension, Relevance, Inadequate response definition, Reference Point, Perspective modification, and Calibration Across Items. Our analysis of 24 manuscripts that used ICF linking for content validation since updated linking rules were published found that authors typically used linking to validate existing measures, involved multiple raters, used 2005 linking rules, summarized content at a concept level (e.g., impairment, activity, participation) and/or use core sets as a reference standard. Infrequently, ICF linking was used to create item pools/conceptual frameworks for new measures, applied the full scope of the 2019 linking rules, used summary indicators, or integrated ICF-linking with qualitative methods like cognitive interviews. We conclude that ICF linkage is a powerful tool for content validity during development or validation of PROM. Best practices include use of updated ICF linking rules, triangulation of ICF linking with participant assessments of clarity and relevance preferably obtained using cognitive interview methods, and application of defined summary indicators.

摘要

内容效度是结果测量的一项基本要求。在审视了操作需求和现有定义后,我们将内容效度定义为:一项测量在规定范围内,针对特定目标受众和情境,清晰且公平地对特定结构或属性的关键相关要素进行全面且真实评估的程度。2002年、2005年和2019年的国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)关联规则为描述和评估结果测量的内容提供了越来越清晰的流程。ICF核心集为不同健康状况下重要的核心结构提供了国际参考标准。在内容效度验证过程中,两者作为参考标准都很重要。为总结它们作为参考标准的用途,提出了以下总结指标:(1)测量与ICF的关联;(2)测量与(简要或全面)核心集的绝对关联;(3)测量与(简要或全面)核心集的独特关联;(4)核心集代表性;(5)核心集独特残疾代表性。需要评估受访者如何理解内容的方法来补充ICF关联。认知访谈是一种理想的方法,因为它用于探究受访者如何解释和校准对结果测量中各个条目的回答。我们提出了一个对这些回答进行分类的框架:清晰度/理解度、相关性、回答定义不充分、参考点、视角修正以及各条目间的校准。我们对自更新后的关联规则发布以来使用ICF关联进行内容效度验证的24篇手稿进行分析发现,作者通常使用关联来验证现有测量,涉及多个评分者,使用2005年的关联规则,在概念层面(如损伤、活动、参与)总结内容和/或使用核心集作为参考标准。很少有研究使用ICF关联为新测量创建条目池/概念框架,应用2019年关联规则的全部范围,使用总结指标,或将ICF关联与认知访谈等定性方法相结合。我们得出结论,ICF关联是患者报告结局测量(PROM)开发或验证过程中内容效度验证的有力工具。最佳实践包括使用更新后的ICF关联规则,将ICF关联与最好通过认知访谈方法获得的参与者对清晰度和相关性的评估进行三角互证,并应用已定义的总结指标。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1e45/9397968/235841a01369/fresc-02-702596-g0001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验