COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study

Background: Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on rel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Mokkink, Lidwine B., Boers, Maarten, van der Vleuten, C.P.M., Bouter, Lex M., Alonso Caballero, Jordi, Patrick, Donald L., De Vet, Henrica C. W., Terwee, Caroline B.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Institución:Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Repositorio:Repositorio Digital de la UPF
OAI Identifier:oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/46149
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:COSMIN
Delphi study
Measurement error
Outcome measurement instruments
Quality assessment
Reliability
Risk of Bias
id ES_7a04792209a5fc8cc51facd36b151ee5
oai_identifier_str oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/46149
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi studyMokkink, Lidwine B.Boers, Maartenvan der Vleuten, C.P.M.Bouter, Lex M.Alonso Caballero, JordiPatrick, Donald L.De Vet, Henrica C. W.Terwee, Caroline B.COSMINDelphi studyMeasurement errorOutcome measurement instrumentsQuality assessmentReliabilityRisk of BiasBackground: Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on reliability and measurement error, if properly designed and analyzed. The aim of this study was to develop standards to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of clinician-reported outcome measurement instruments, performance-based outcome measurement instrument, and laboratory values. Methods: We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving 52 panelists. Results: Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. Consensus was reached on components of outcome measurement instruments, i.e. the potential sources of variation. Next, we reached consensus on standards on design requirements (n = 5), standards on preferred statistical methods for reliability (n = 3) and measurement error (n = 2), and their ratings on a four-point scale. There was one term for a component and one rating of one standard on which no consensus was reached, and therefore required a decision by the steering committee. Conclusion: We developed a tool that enables researchers with and without thorough knowledge on measurement properties to assess the quality of a study on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.BioMed Central202120212020info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10230/46149http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5reponame:Repositorio Digital de la UPFinstname:Universitat Pompeu FabraInglésBMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):293© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data mahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/461492026-06-12T07:21:37Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
title COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
spellingShingle COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
Mokkink, Lidwine B.
COSMIN
Delphi study
Measurement error
Outcome measurement instruments
Quality assessment
Reliability
Risk of Bias
title_short COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
title_full COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
title_fullStr COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
title_full_unstemmed COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
title_sort COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Mokkink, Lidwine B.
Boers, Maarten
van der Vleuten, C.P.M.
Bouter, Lex M.
Alonso Caballero, Jordi
Patrick, Donald L.
De Vet, Henrica C. W.
Terwee, Caroline B.
author Mokkink, Lidwine B.
author_facet Mokkink, Lidwine B.
Boers, Maarten
van der Vleuten, C.P.M.
Bouter, Lex M.
Alonso Caballero, Jordi
Patrick, Donald L.
De Vet, Henrica C. W.
Terwee, Caroline B.
author_role author
author2 Boers, Maarten
van der Vleuten, C.P.M.
Bouter, Lex M.
Alonso Caballero, Jordi
Patrick, Donald L.
De Vet, Henrica C. W.
Terwee, Caroline B.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv COSMIN
Delphi study
Measurement error
Outcome measurement instruments
Quality assessment
Reliability
Risk of Bias
topic COSMIN
Delphi study
Measurement error
Outcome measurement instruments
Quality assessment
Reliability
Risk of Bias
description Background: Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on reliability and measurement error, if properly designed and analyzed. The aim of this study was to develop standards to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of clinician-reported outcome measurement instruments, performance-based outcome measurement instrument, and laboratory values. Methods: We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving 52 panelists. Results: Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. Consensus was reached on components of outcome measurement instruments, i.e. the potential sources of variation. Next, we reached consensus on standards on design requirements (n = 5), standards on preferred statistical methods for reliability (n = 3) and measurement error (n = 2), and their ratings on a four-point scale. There was one term for a component and one rating of one standard on which no consensus was reached, and therefore required a decision by the steering committee. Conclusion: We developed a tool that enables researchers with and without thorough knowledge on measurement properties to assess the quality of a study on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2021
2021
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5
url http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):293
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BioMed Central
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BioMed Central
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositorio Digital de la UPF
instname:Universitat Pompeu Fabra
instname_str Universitat Pompeu Fabra
reponame_str Repositorio Digital de la UPF
collection Repositorio Digital de la UPF
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869411406231633920
score 15,812429

Similares en LA Referencia