The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Mokkink, Lidwine B ^a   Terwee, Caroline B ^a   Knol, Dirk L ^a   Stratford, Paul W ^b   Alonso, Jordi ^c,d   Patrick, Donald L ^e   Bouter, Lex M ^a,f   De Vet, Henrica Cw ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

^d CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^f VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; DELPHI STUDY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHECKLIST; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77950550674     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. C Powell, J Adv Nurs 2003 41 376 382 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x 12581103
2. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. LB Mokkink CB Terwee DL Knol PW Stratford J Alonso DL Patrick LM Bouter HCW De Vet, BMC Med Res Methodol 2006 6 2 10.1186/1471-2288-6-2 16433905
3. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. LB Mokkink CB Terwee DL Patrick J Alonso PW Stratford DL Knol LM Bouter HCW De Vet, Qual Life Res 2010 20169472
4. The COSMIN checklist manual. LB Mokkink CB Terwee DL Patrick J Alonso PW Stratford DL Knol LM Bouter HCW De Vet, http://cosmin.nl
5. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. LB Mokkink CB Terwee DL Patrick J Alonso PW Stratford DL Knol LM Bouter HCW De Vet, J Clin Epidemiol 2010 19540720
6. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. JM Cortina, J Appl Psychology 1993 78 98 104 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
7. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. LJ Cronbach, Psychometrika 1951 16 297 334 10.1007/BF02310555
8. Causal indicators in quality of life research. PM Fayers DJ Hand K Bjordal M Groenvold, Qual Life Res 1997 6 393 406 10.1023/A:1018491512095 9290306
9. Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesn't matter. DL Streiner, J Pers Assess 2003 80 217 222 10.1207/ S15327752JPA8003-01 12763696
10. Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. GJ Van der Heijden P Leffers LM Bouter, J Clin Epidemiol 2000 53 29 38 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00078-5 10693901
11. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrom. DW Levine BP Simmons MJ Koris LH Daltroy GG Hohl AH Fossel JN Katz, J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993 75 1585 1592 8245050
12. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. IB Wilson PD Cleary, JAMA 1995 273 59 65 10.1001/jama.273.1.59 7996652
13. World Health Organization, ICF: international classification of functioning, disability and health Geneva: World Health Organization 2001
14. Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology. ME Strauss GT Smith, Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008
15. Construct validity in psychological tests. LJ Cronbach PE Meehl, Psychol Bull 1955 52 281 302 10.1037/h0040957 13245896
16. I McDowell C Newell, Measuring health. A guide to rating scales and questionnaires New York, NY: Oxford University Press 2 1996
17. The standard problem. Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. S Messick, American Psychologist 1975 955 966 10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.955
18. DG Altman, Practical statistics for medical research London: Chapman & Hall/CRC 1991
19. Qualitative attributes and measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires: a checklist. CB Terwee LB Mokkink MNM Van Poppel MJM Chinapaw W Van Mechelen HCW De Vet, Accepted for publication in Sports Med
20. Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1. MR De Boer CB Terwee HC De Vet AC Moll HJ Völker-Dieben GH Van Rens, Qual Life Res 2006 15 233 248 10.1007/s11136-005-1524-9 16468079
21. J Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2 1988
22. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? CA McHorney AR Tarlov, Qual Life Res 1995 4 293 307 10.1007/BF01593882 7550178
23. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. GR Norman, J Clin Epidemiol 1989 42 1097 1105 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90051-6 2809664
24. Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: a comparison of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial specific module. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. MR Stockler D Osoba P Goodwin P Corey IF Tannock, J Clin Epidemiol 1998 51 137 145 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00269-2 9474074
25. DL Streiner GR Norman, Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use Oxford: University Press 4 2008
26. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. CB Terwee FW Dekker WM Wiersinga MF Prummel PM Bossuyt, Qual Life Res 2003 12 349 362 10.1023/A:1023499322593 12797708
27. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. GH Guyatt S Walter GR Norman, J Chronic Dis 1987 40 171 178 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 3818871
28. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. FJ Floyd KF Widaman, Psychological Assessment 1995 7 286 299 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
29. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. HC De Vet HJ Ader CB Terwee F Pouwer, Qual Life Res 2005 14 1203 1218 10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3 16047498 (Pubitemid 40895744)
30. Definition of clinical differences. Letter to the Editor. H De Vet H Beckerman CB Terwee B Terluin LM Bouter for the clinimetrics working group, J Rheumatol 2006 33 434 16465677
31. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. DA Revicki RD Hays DF Cella JA Sloan, J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 102 109 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 18177782
32. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. S Keeney F Hasson HP McKenna, Int J Nurs Stud 2001 38 195 200 10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4 11223060
33. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. F Hasson S Keeney H McKenna, J Adv Nurs 2000 32 1008 1015 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x 11095242
34. The Delphi technique: a critique. CM Goodman, J Adv Nurs 1987 12 729 734 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x 3320139