4.6 Article

Evaluating the Content Validity of Four Performance Outcome Measures in Patients with Elective Hip Replacements and Hip Fractures

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 1115-1123

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.02.005

关键词

content validation; hip fracture; hip replacement; performance outcomes

资金

  1. Eli Lilly and Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the content validity of performance outcome (PerfO) measures for use with patients undergoing hip fracture (HF) surgery and elective total hip replacement (eTHR). Methods: This study was a substudy of a broader evaluation of measurement properties of PerfO measures. The PerfO measures assessed were timed up and go (TUG), four-step stair climb (4SC), long stair climb (LSC), and repeated chair stand (RCS). For this substudy, HF and eTHR participants were interviewed to evaluate the relevance and difficulty of each PerfO measure. Qualitative analysis was conducted on interview transcripts, and summaries of coded data were produced to assess saturation. Results: All 18 HF participants related the PerfO measures (TUG, 4SC, and RSC) to activities they completed in daily life, with slight variations in some specific aspects. For the eight eTHR participants, the correspondence between the PerfO measures (TUG, 4SC, and LSC) and activities in daily life varied: all participants saw similarity in the movements for the TUG; most undertook short stair climbs in daily life, but most did not regularly undertake LSC in daily life. Nevertheless, all HF and eTHR participants reported that the PerfO measures were relevant and had a level of difficulty similar to daily activities. Conclusions: This study contributes novel methods that adapt US regulatory guidance for patient-reported outcome measures to the evaluation of PerfO measures. A structured approach was used to explore specific details of each measure and correspondence to everyday life. This study demonstrates how content validity of PerfO measures can be meaningfully assessed.

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

4.6
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