Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: Designing a measurement strategy

Claire F. Snyder, Maria E. Watson, Joseph D. Jackson, David Cella, Michele Y. Halyard, Jeff A Sloan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To discuss issues in the design of a measurement strategy related to the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in support of a labelling claim. Methods: In association with the release by the US Food and Drug Administration of its draft guidance on the use of PROs to support labeling claims, the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Writing Group was formed. This paper, part of a series of manuscripts produced by the Writing Group, focuses on designing a PRO measurement strategy. Results: Developing a PRO measurement strategy begins with a clear statement about the proposed label claim that will derive from the PRO data. Investigators should identify the relevant domains to measure, develop a conceptual framework, identify alternative approaches for measuring the domains, and synthesize the information to design the measurement strategy. Often, there is not an already existing single instrument that has been developed and validated for the purposes of a given study. In such cases, investigators may consider supplementing an already existing questionnaire with additional scales or questions, modifying already existing instruments for a new application or patient population, or developing a new instrument altogether. The level of revalidation required for modifications and adaptations depends on the extent of the changes made. Revalidation requirements may range from cognitive testing/debriefing to confirm that subjects respond to the new instrument as expected to full-scale reliability and validity evaluations. Conclusion: A position of "reasonable pragmatism" is recommended such that the best available measurement strategy be considered as evidence for labeling.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalValue in Health
Volume10
Issue numberSUPPL. 2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2007

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
pragmatism
Manuscripts
United States Food and Drug Administration
Focus Groups
Reproducibility of Results
Group
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
questionnaire
evaluation
evidence
Population
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Instrument selection
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Patient-reported outcome instrument selection : Designing a measurement strategy. / Snyder, Claire F.; Watson, Maria E.; Jackson, Joseph D.; Cella, David; Halyard, Michele Y.; Sloan, Jeff A.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 10, No. SUPPL. 2, 11.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Snyder, Claire F. ; Watson, Maria E. ; Jackson, Joseph D. ; Cella, David ; Halyard, Michele Y. ; Sloan, Jeff A. / Patient-reported outcome instrument selection : Designing a measurement strategy. In: Value in Health. 2007 ; Vol. 10, No. SUPPL. 2.
@article{72adb7cbd6d84bd2b8c147649054995f,
title = "Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: Designing a measurement strategy",
abstract = "Objective: To discuss issues in the design of a measurement strategy related to the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in support of a labelling claim. Methods: In association with the release by the US Food and Drug Administration of its draft guidance on the use of PROs to support labeling claims, the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Writing Group was formed. This paper, part of a series of manuscripts produced by the Writing Group, focuses on designing a PRO measurement strategy. Results: Developing a PRO measurement strategy begins with a clear statement about the proposed label claim that will derive from the PRO data. Investigators should identify the relevant domains to measure, develop a conceptual framework, identify alternative approaches for measuring the domains, and synthesize the information to design the measurement strategy. Often, there is not an already existing single instrument that has been developed and validated for the purposes of a given study. In such cases, investigators may consider supplementing an already existing questionnaire with additional scales or questions, modifying already existing instruments for a new application or patient population, or developing a new instrument altogether. The level of revalidation required for modifications and adaptations depends on the extent of the changes made. Revalidation requirements may range from cognitive testing/debriefing to confirm that subjects respond to the new instrument as expected to full-scale reliability and validity evaluations. Conclusion: A position of {"}reasonable pragmatism{"} is recommended such that the best available measurement strategy be considered as evidence for labeling.",
keywords = "Instrument selection, Patient-reported outcomes, Validation",
author = "Snyder, {Claire F.} and Watson, {Maria E.} and Jackson, {Joseph D.} and David Cella and Halyard, {Michele Y.} and Sloan, {Jeff A}",
year = "2007",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00270.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "SUPPL. 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-reported outcome instrument selection

T2 - Designing a measurement strategy

AU - Snyder, Claire F.

AU - Watson, Maria E.

AU - Jackson, Joseph D.

AU - Cella, David

AU - Halyard, Michele Y.

AU - Sloan, Jeff A

PY - 2007/11

Y1 - 2007/11

N2 - Objective: To discuss issues in the design of a measurement strategy related to the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in support of a labelling claim. Methods: In association with the release by the US Food and Drug Administration of its draft guidance on the use of PROs to support labeling claims, the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Writing Group was formed. This paper, part of a series of manuscripts produced by the Writing Group, focuses on designing a PRO measurement strategy. Results: Developing a PRO measurement strategy begins with a clear statement about the proposed label claim that will derive from the PRO data. Investigators should identify the relevant domains to measure, develop a conceptual framework, identify alternative approaches for measuring the domains, and synthesize the information to design the measurement strategy. Often, there is not an already existing single instrument that has been developed and validated for the purposes of a given study. In such cases, investigators may consider supplementing an already existing questionnaire with additional scales or questions, modifying already existing instruments for a new application or patient population, or developing a new instrument altogether. The level of revalidation required for modifications and adaptations depends on the extent of the changes made. Revalidation requirements may range from cognitive testing/debriefing to confirm that subjects respond to the new instrument as expected to full-scale reliability and validity evaluations. Conclusion: A position of "reasonable pragmatism" is recommended such that the best available measurement strategy be considered as evidence for labeling.

AB - Objective: To discuss issues in the design of a measurement strategy related to the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in support of a labelling claim. Methods: In association with the release by the US Food and Drug Administration of its draft guidance on the use of PROs to support labeling claims, the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Writing Group was formed. This paper, part of a series of manuscripts produced by the Writing Group, focuses on designing a PRO measurement strategy. Results: Developing a PRO measurement strategy begins with a clear statement about the proposed label claim that will derive from the PRO data. Investigators should identify the relevant domains to measure, develop a conceptual framework, identify alternative approaches for measuring the domains, and synthesize the information to design the measurement strategy. Often, there is not an already existing single instrument that has been developed and validated for the purposes of a given study. In such cases, investigators may consider supplementing an already existing questionnaire with additional scales or questions, modifying already existing instruments for a new application or patient population, or developing a new instrument altogether. The level of revalidation required for modifications and adaptations depends on the extent of the changes made. Revalidation requirements may range from cognitive testing/debriefing to confirm that subjects respond to the new instrument as expected to full-scale reliability and validity evaluations. Conclusion: A position of "reasonable pragmatism" is recommended such that the best available measurement strategy be considered as evidence for labeling.

KW - Instrument selection

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Validation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36048938965&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=36048938965&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00270.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00270.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17995477

AN - SCOPUS:36048938965

VL - 10

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - SUPPL. 2

ER -