Cited by 4,465Delphi Technique in ResearchHealth Education and ValidationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes

Open access
Mokkink, Lidwine B., Terwee, Caroline B., Patrick, Donald L., Alonso, Jordi, Stratford, Paul W., Knol, Dirk L., Bouter, Lex M., de Vet, Henrica C.W.·2010·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective Lack of consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions has led to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant and which concepts they represent. The aim was to clarify and standardize terminology and definitions of measurement properties by reaching consensus among a group of experts and to develop a taxonomy of measurement properties relevant for evaluating health instruments.Study design and setting An international Delphi study with four written rounds was performed. Participating experts had a background in epidemiology, statistics, psychology, and clinical medicine. The panel was asked to rate their (dis)agreement about proposals on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel agreed.Results Of 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate and 43 actually participated. Consensus was reached on positions of measurement properties in the taxonomy (68-84%), terminology (74-88%, except for structural validity [56%]), and definitions of measurement properties (68-88%). The panel extensively discussed the positions of internal consistency and responsiveness in the taxonomy, the terms "reliability" and "structural validity," and the definitions of internal consistency and reliability.Conclusions Consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties was reached. Hopefully, this will lead to a more uniform use of terms and definitions in the literature on measurement properties.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • COSMIN requires reliability to be assessed by intra-class correlation coefficients or weighted Kappa and requires multiple observations in time.

    “COSMIN requires reliability to be assessed by intra-class correlation coefficients or weighted Kappa and it requires multiple observations in time71.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]

    Section 3.5 (page unavailable) calls the intraclass correlation coefficient and Cohen’s kappa the most preferred statistical methods, but does not say they are required or specify weighted kappa. Table 2 (page unavailable) describes repeated measurements over time as one reliability condition; it also includes measurements by different raters on the same occasion, so observations at multiple times are not universally required. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • COSMIN requires that factor analyses or IRT/Rasch analyses are used to assess structural validity.

    “COSMIN requires that factor analyses or IRT/Rasch analyses are used to assess structural validity71.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]

    Section 3.4 (Terminology; page not available) identifies factorial analysis as one method for evaluating structural validity, and the Validity definitions describe structural validity in terms of dimensionality. The paper does not say that COSMIN requires factor analysis or IRT/Rasch analysis; its Introduction says design requirements and preferred statistical methods are described in a related article. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • COSMIN requires a comparison to either another scale aiming to measure a similar construct or hypothesis testing among subgroups to assess construct validity.

    “COSMIN requires a comparison to either another scale aiming to measure a similar construct or hypothesis testing among subgroups71.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Validity section (page unavailable) lists relationships with other instruments and differences between relevant groups as ways to test hypotheses about construct validity. But it also lists internal relationships, and the Taxonomy section identifies structural and cross-cultural validity as other aspects of construct validity. The source therefore supports the two named approaches, not the claim that COSMIN requires one or the other. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • COSMIN allows several ways to test a scale's responsiveness including hypothesis testing before and after intervention, comparison between subgroups, comparison with other outcome measurement instruments, or comparison to a gold standard.

    “COSMIN allows several ways to test scale’s responsiveness including hypothesis testing before and after intervention, comparison between subgroups, comparison with other outcome measurement instruments, or comparison to a gold standard71.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]

    Section 3.3 (Taxonomy; page not available) says responsiveness concerns the validity of a change score, and Section 3.5 (Definitions; page not available) defines it as detecting change over time. The paper does not specify the claimed testing approaches—before-and-after intervention testing, subgroup or instrument comparisons, or comparison with a gold standard. The Introduction says design requirements and preferred statistical methods are described in a related article. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • COSMIN requires Cronbach's alpha(s) to be calculated for each unidimensional scale or subscale.

    “COSMIN requires Cronbach’s alpha(s) to be calculated for each unidimensional scale or subscale71.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]

    Section 3.5 (page not provided) says unidimensionality is a prerequisite for clearly interpreting an internal-consistency statistic and discusses (sub)scales. It does not say COSMIN requires Cronbach’s alpha to be calculated for each unidimensional scale or subscale. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Municipal Institute for Medical Research (ES)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Mokkink, Lidwine B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
63
Issue
7
Pages
737-745
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171762906
Cited by
4,465
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 345 · 2025: 416 · 2024: 495 · 2023: 458 · 2022: 425 · 2021: 452 · 2020: 384 · 2019: 278 · 2018: 253 · 2017: 236 · 2016: 220 · 2015: 149 · 2014: 149 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 60
FWCI
205.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
measurement properties, COSMIN, terminology standardization, internal consistency, responsiveness, reliability statistics, structural validity, expert consensus
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Delphi Technique, Health Status, Health Status Indicators, Humans, International Cooperation, Terminology as Topic, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Guidelines as Topic, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review