The COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument

Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 105-113

  Mokkink, Lidwine B ^a   Prinsen, Cecilia A C ^a   Bouter, Lex M ^a   de Vet, Henrica C W ^a   Terwee, Caroline B ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

COSMIN; Measurement properties; Outcome measures; Outcome selection; Systematic reviews of instruments

Indexed keywords

BRAZIL; CONSENSUS; DEVICES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE;

BRAZIL; CONSENSUS; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84973333410     PISSN: 14133555     EISSN: 18099246     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(1):2. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-2. PMid:16433905.
2. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-45. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006. PMid:20494804.
3. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8. PMid:24411645.
4. Mills RJ, Young CA, Pallant JF, Tennant A. Development of a patient reported outcome scale for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: The Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):22. http://dx.doi. org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-22. PMid:20152031.
5. Chren MM, Lasek RJ, Quinn LM, Mostow EN, Zyzanski SJ. Skindex, a quality-of-life measure for patients with skin disease: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Invest Dermatol. 1996;107(5):707-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12365600. PMid:8875954.
6. World Health Organization-WHO. ICF: International Classification of Functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
7. Nagi SZ. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In: Sussman MB, editor. Sociology and rehabilitation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press; 1965. p. 100-13.
8. World Health Organization-WHO. International classification of International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps.Geneva: WHO; 1980.
9. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13(1):132. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132. PMid:22867278.
10. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, King-Jones S, Ishaque S, Bhaloo Z, et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a 'core outcome set'. Trials. 2014;15(1):247. http://dx.doi. org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-247. PMid:24962012.
11. Boers M, Kirwan JR, Tugwell P, Beaton D, Bingham CO 3rd, Conaghan PG, et al. The OMERACT handbook. OMERACT; 2015.
12. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8. PMid:20169472.
13. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22. PMid:20298572.
14. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1. PMid:21732199.
15. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: University Press; 2008.
16. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments-COSMIN [Internet]. Amsterdam: COSMIN; 2015 [cited 2015 Sept. 28]. Available from: http:// www.cosmin.nl
17. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):82. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-82. PMid:20860789.
18. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, Vet HCW. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11136-009-9528-5. PMid:19711195.
19. GRADE working group [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2015 Sept. 28]. Available from: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org
20. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2006.03.012. PMid:17161752.
21. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Riphagen I, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(3):313-33. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9. PMid:19238586.
22. Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Garotti MGR, Suman A, Vet HC, Mokkink LB. The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1122-4. PMid:26346986.
23. Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 1980.
24. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1988.
25. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
26. Fries JF, Bruce B, Bjorner J, Rose M. More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(Suppl 3):iii16-21. http://dx.doi. org/10.1136/ard.2006.059279. PMid:17038464.
27. Lai JS, Cella D, Choi S, Junghaenel DU, Christodoulou C, Gershon R, et al. How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: a PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10 Suppl):S20-7. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.08.033. PMid:21958919.
28. Fries JF, Krishnan E, Rose M, Lingala B, Bruce B. Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(5):R147. http://dx.doi. org/10.1186/ar3461. PMid:21914216.
29. Thissen D, Reeve BB, Bjorner JB, Chang CH. Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(S1 Suppl 1):109-19. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9169-5. PMid:17294284.
30. Haley SM, Ni P, Hambleton RK, Slavin MD, Jette AM. Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(11):1174-82. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.010. PMid:17027428.
31. Bjorner JB, Chang CH, Thissen D, Reeve BB. Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(S1 Suppl 1):95-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9168-6. PMid:17530450.
32. PROMIS-Dynamic tools to measure health outcomes from the patient perspective [Internet]. Chapel Hill: PROMIS; 2015 [cited 2015 Sept. 28]. Available from: http://www.nihpromis. org