Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies

<p style="text-align:justify;"><b>Aim:</b> To identify and appraise the quality of studies that primarily assessed the measurement properties of English language versions of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) when evaluated with children with neur...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Janssens, A, Rogers, M, Gumm, R, Jenkinson, C, Tennant, A, Logan, S, Morris, C
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2015
_version_ 1826305957042323456
author Janssens, A
Rogers, M
Gumm, R
Jenkinson, C
Tennant, A
Logan, S
Morris, C
author_facet Janssens, A
Rogers, M
Gumm, R
Jenkinson, C
Tennant, A
Logan, S
Morris, C
author_sort Janssens, A
collection OXFORD
description <p style="text-align:justify;"><b>Aim:</b> To identify and appraise the quality of studies that primarily assessed the measurement properties of English language versions of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) when evaluated with children with neurodisability, and to summarize this evidence.<br/> <b>Method:</b> MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed using the COnsensus‐based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Evidence of content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, proxy reliability, responsiveness, and precision was extracted and judged against standardized reference criteria.<br/> <b>Results:</b> We identified 48 studies of mostly fair to good methodological quality: 37 papers for seven generic PROMs (CHIP, CHQ, CQoL, KIDSCREEN, PedsQL, SLSS, and YQOL), seven papers for two chronic–generic PROMs (DISABKIDS and Neuro‐QOL), and four papers for three preference‐based measures (HUI, EQ‐5D‐Y, and CHSCS‐PS).<br/> <b>Interpretation:</b> On the basis of this appraisal, the DISABKIDS appears to have more supportive evidence in samples of children with neurodisability. The overall lack of evidence for responsiveness and measurement error is a concern when using these instruments to measure change, or to interpret the findings of studies in which these PROMs have been used to assess change.</p>
first_indexed 2024-03-07T06:40:40Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:f92c15ba-b080-4c27-bc03-e5fe2eb95938
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T06:40:40Z
publishDate 2015
publisher Wiley
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:f92c15ba-b080-4c27-bc03-e5fe2eb959382022-03-27T12:55:57ZMeasurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studiesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f92c15ba-b080-4c27-bc03-e5fe2eb95938EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordWiley2015Janssens, ARogers, MGumm, RJenkinson, CTennant, ALogan, SMorris, C <p style="text-align:justify;"><b>Aim:</b> To identify and appraise the quality of studies that primarily assessed the measurement properties of English language versions of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) when evaluated with children with neurodisability, and to summarize this evidence.<br/> <b>Method:</b> MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed using the COnsensus‐based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Evidence of content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, proxy reliability, responsiveness, and precision was extracted and judged against standardized reference criteria.<br/> <b>Results:</b> We identified 48 studies of mostly fair to good methodological quality: 37 papers for seven generic PROMs (CHIP, CHQ, CQoL, KIDSCREEN, PedsQL, SLSS, and YQOL), seven papers for two chronic–generic PROMs (DISABKIDS and Neuro‐QOL), and four papers for three preference‐based measures (HUI, EQ‐5D‐Y, and CHSCS‐PS).<br/> <b>Interpretation:</b> On the basis of this appraisal, the DISABKIDS appears to have more supportive evidence in samples of children with neurodisability. The overall lack of evidence for responsiveness and measurement error is a concern when using these instruments to measure change, or to interpret the findings of studies in which these PROMs have been used to assess change.</p>
spellingShingle Janssens, A
Rogers, M
Gumm, R
Jenkinson, C
Tennant, A
Logan, S
Morris, C
Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies
title Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies
title_full Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies
title_fullStr Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies
title_full_unstemmed Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies
title_short Measurement properties of multidimensional patient‐reported outcome measures in neurodisability: a systematic review of evaluation studies
title_sort measurement properties of multidimensional patient reported outcome measures in neurodisability a systematic review of evaluation studies
work_keys_str_mv AT janssensa measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies
AT rogersm measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies
AT gummr measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies
AT jenkinsonc measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies
AT tennanta measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies
AT logans measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies
AT morrisc measurementpropertiesofmultidimensionalpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinneurodisabilityasystematicreviewofevaluationstudies