4.5 Article

Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS)

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 10, 页码 1239-1246

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9402-x

关键词

Cognitive interviewing; Outcomes assessment; Qualitative methods; Quality of life; Questionnaire development

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [U01 AR052170-04, U01AR52155, U01 AR052158, U01AR52181, U01AR52170, U01AR52186, U01 AR052171, U01 AR052186, U01AR52177, U01 AR052177, U01 AR052155, U01 AR052177-04, U01 AR052181-04, U01AR52171, U01 AR052181, U01AR52158, U01 AR052170] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cognitive Interviewing (CI) is a technique increasingly used to obtain respondent feedback on potential items during questionnaire development. No standard guidelines exist by which to incorporate CI feedback in deciding to retain, revise, or eliminate potential items. We used CI in developing fatigue items for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Roadmap initiative. Our aims were to describe the CI process, formally evaluate the utility of decisions made on the basis of CI, and offer suggestions for future research. Participants were 22 patients with a diverse range of chronic health conditions. During CI, each participant provided feedback on a series of items. We then reviewed the CI data and decided whether to retain, revise, or eliminate each potential item. Following this, we developed or adopted three quantitative methods to compare retained versus eliminated items. Retained items raised fewer serious concerns, were less likely to be viewed as non-applicable, and were less likely to display problems with clarity or to make incorrect assumptions about respondents. CI was useful in developing the PROMIS fatigue items and the methods used to judge CI for the present item set may be useful for future investigations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据