The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Development, Assessment, and Selection of Questionnaires
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measurement has become accepted as an important component of comprehensive outcomes research. Researchers wishing to use a patient-reported measure must either develop their own questionnaire (called an instrument in the research literature) or choose from the myriad of instruments previously reported. This article summarizes how previously developed instruments are best assessed using a systematic process and we propose a system of quality assessment so that clinicians and researchers can determine whether there exists an appropriately developed and validated instrument that matches their particular needs. These quality assessment criteria may also be useful to guide new instrument development and refinement. We welcome debate over the appropriateness of these criteria as this will lead to the evolution of better quality assessment criteria and in turn better assessment of patient-reported outcomes.
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.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
(1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,856
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
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/096228099673819272 · Cited by 9,619
(1932) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,568
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
Billson, J. M. (1989) · Human Biology · Cited by 8,560
Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2003) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01103.x · Cited by 4,492
Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1987) · Cited by 4,207
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Jutai J, 2003, The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses, Optometry, 74, 299
- Day HY, 2001, The stability of impact of assistive devices, Disabil Rehabil, 23, 400, 10.1080/09638280010008906 · doi:10.1080/09638280010008906
- Day H, 2003, Is telephone assessment a valid tool in rehabilitation research and practice, Disabil Rehabil, 25, 1126, 10.1080/0963828031000152057 · doi:10.1080/0963828031000152057
- Vitale S, 2000, The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision‐related quality of life in persons with refractive error, Ophthalmology, 107, 1529, 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00171-8 · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00171-8
- Schein OD, 2000, The measurement of patient‐reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile, Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, 98, 439
- Nichols JJ, 2005, Sensitivity of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to refractive surgery outcomes, J Cataract Refract Surg, 31, 2313, 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.04.033 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.04.033
- McDonnell PJ, 2003, Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error, Ophthalmology, 110, 2302, 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.02.004 · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.02.004
- Trochim WMK, 2000, The Research Methods Knowledge Base
- Embretson SE, 1999, The New Rules of Measurement: What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know, 65, 10.4324/9781410603593 · DOI · Paper page
- Linacre JM, 1998, Structure in Rasch residuals: why principal components analysis, Rasch Meas Trans, 12, 636
- Linacre JM, 2003, Size vs. significance: Standardized chi‐square fit statistic, Rasch Meas Trans, 17, 918
- Fisher W, 1992, Reliability statistics, Rasch Meas Trans, 6, 238
Cited by
Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review
Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12442 · Cited by 371
Social and emotional impact of diabetic retinopathy: a review
Fenwick, E., Rees, G., Pesudovs, K., Dirani, M., Kawasaki, R., Wong, T. Y., & Lamoureux, E. (2012) · Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02599.x · Cited by 156
Self-citationGimeno-Santos, E., Raste, Y., Demeyer, H., Louvaris, Z., de Jong, C., Rabinovich, R. A., Hopkinson, N. S., Polkey, M. I., Vogiatzis, I., Tabberer, M., et al. (2015) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00183014 · Cited by 151
Knibb, R. C., Barnes, C., & Stalker, C. (2015) · Clinical & Experimental Allergy · doi:10.1111/cea.12599 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- PESUDOVS, K., BURR, J. M., HARLEY, C., & ELLIOTT, D. B.
- Venue
- Optometry and Vision Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 663-674
- ISSN
- 1040-5488 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2160509611
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 71.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Development, Assessment, and Selection of Questionnaires. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/opx.0b013e318141fe75
- The paper
- PESUDOVS, K., BURR, J. M., HARLEY, C., & ELLIOTT, D. B. (2007). The Development, Assessment, and Selection of Questionnaires. Optometry and Vision Science. https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0b013e318141fe75
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
