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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“COSMIN requires multiple group factor analysis or DIF analysis to be used to assess cross-cultural validity71.”
From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“COSMIN requires smallest detectable change or limits of agreement to be measured to assess the measurement error.”
From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“COSMIN requires multiple group factor analysis or DIF analysis to be used to assess measurement invariance71.”
From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [71]
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.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Self-citationHealth Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Cortina, J. M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 · Cited by 8,810 · cited 7×
“According to these sources, homogeneity of the items refers to the unidimensionality of a scale [11] and is a prerequisite for a clear interpretation of the internal consistency statistic [8,11].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 · Cited by 4,260
Self-citationMessick, S. (1995) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.50.9.741 · Cited by 4,198
The Delphi technique: myths and realities
Powell, C. (2003) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x · Cited by 2,611
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., de Bie, R. A., Kessels, A. G. H., Boers, M., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0 · Cited by 2,470
Self-citationAssessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria
Lohr, K. N. (2002) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/a:1015291021312 · Cited by 2,281
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
Jiménez-García, E. (2017) · Revista Española de Pedagogía · doi:10.22550/2174-0909.3051 · Cited by 2,227
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,009 of 1,009
Liu, Y., Wang, L., Wei, Y., Wang, X., Xu, T., & Sun, J. (2016) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000004339 · Cited by 19
Herkert, C., Kraal, J. J., van Loon, E. M. A., van Hooff, M., & Kemps, H. M. C. (2019) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/15045 · Cited by 19
Serowik, K. L., Khan, A. J., LoCurto, J., & Orsillo, S. M. (2018) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-018-9679-1 · Cited by 15
Huang, F., Chen, W.-T., Shiu, C.-S., Lin, S. H., Tun, M. S., Nwe, T. W., Nu Oo, Y. T., & Oo, H. N. (2022) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-021-01784-5 · Cited by 11
Psychometric Performance of Fatigue Scales in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Marrie, R. A., Fisk, J. D., Dolovich, C., Lix, L. M., Graff, L. A., Patten, S. B., & Bernstein, C. N. (2024) · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · doi:10.1093/ibd/izad038 · Cited by 12
Santos, M. R., Malaguti, C., Cabral, L. A., Soares, A. L., Neves, L. H. G., Sena, L. D. A., Parmanto, B., Sauers, A. L., José, A., & Oliveira, C. C. (2023) · Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira · doi:10.1590/1806-9282.20230228 · Cited by 6
Kersten, P., Vandal, A. C., Elder, H., Tauroa, R., & McPherson, K. M. (2017) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0725-5 · Cited by 7
Pua, Y.-H., Tay, L., Terluin, B., Clark, R. A., Thumboo, J., Tay, E.-L., Mah, S.-M., & Ng, Y.-S. (2023) · Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2023.105036 · Cited by 5
Strömbergsson, S., Fröjdh, M., Pettersson, M., Grósz, T., Getman, Y., & Kurimo, M. (2025) · Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics · doi:10.1080/02699206.2024.2355470 · Cited by 1
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.
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
