Cited by 1,095Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and ValidationDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1 – eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument

Open access

Abstract

The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts that developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most significant and relevant to a patient's condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Developing content for, and assessing respondent understanding of, newly developed PRO instruments for medical product evaluation will be discussed in this two-part ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Topics include the methods for generating items, documenting item development, coding of qualitative data from item generation, cognitive interviewing, and tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. Part 1 covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Part 2 covers the instrument development process, the assessment of patient understanding of the draft instrument using cognitive interviews and steps for instrument revision. The two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practices in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation.

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.jval.2011.06.014

Cites

45 of 45 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 47 references

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Clark, 2003, How to peer review a qualitative manuscript

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., & Ring, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Patrick, Donald L.
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
14
Issue
8
Pages
967-977
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128536774
Cited by
1,095
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 13
FWCI
67.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
content validity, patient-reported outcomes, item generation, cognitive interviewing, regulatory submissions, patient understanding, good scientific practice
MeSH terms
Documentation, European Union, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Validation Studies as Topic

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