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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › 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