The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The problem with health measurement
Open accessAbstract
In this review we discuss health measurement with a focus on psychometric methods and methodology. In particular, we examine some of the key issues currently facing the use of clinician and patient rating scales to measure the health outcomes of disease and treatment. We present three key facts and flag one crucial problem. First, the numbers generated by scales are increasingly used as the measurements of the central dependent variables upon which clinical decisions are frequently made. The rising profile of rating scales has significant implications for scale construction, evaluation, and selection, as well as for interpreting studies. Second, rating scale science is well established. Therefore, it is important to learn the lessons from those who have built and established the science over the last century. Finally, the goal of a rating scale is to measure. As such, over the last half century, developments in rating scale (psychometric) methods have caused a refocus in the way we should be measuring health. In particular, newer methods have significant clinical advantages over traditional approaches. These should be seriously considered for inclusion in everyday practice. This leads us to the central problem with health measurement, which is that we cannot currently be sure what most rating scales are measuring. This is because the methods we have in place to ensure the validity of rating scales fall short of what is actually required. We expand on this point, and provide some potential routes forward to help address this important problem.
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
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Depression and quality of life in older persons: A review
Sivertsen, H., Bjørkløf, G. H., Engedal, K., Selbæk, G., & Helvik, A.-S. (2015) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · doi:10.1159/000437299 · Cited by 14,152
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
On the Theory of Scales of Measurement
Stevens, S. S. (1946) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 · Cited by 4,761 · cited 1×
“Classical test theory is grounded in the definition of measurement as proposed by Stevens (ie, “the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to some rule”).(79) It is important to note that this definition differs in important respects from the more classical definition of measurement adopted throughout t…”
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. (2010) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 · Cited by 4,260
Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Stewart, A., & Ware, J. (1992) · doi:10.7249/cb361 · Cited by 2,689
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Andrich, D. (1988) · doi:10.4135/9781412985598 · Cited by 1,345
Cited by
Construction and validation of an Educational Content Validation Instrument in Health
Leite, S. D. S., Áfio, A. C. E., Carvalho, L. V. D., Silva, J. M. D., Almeida, P. C. D., & Pagliuca, L. M. F. (2018) · Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0648 · Cited by 420
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Appearance Scale
Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., & Cano, S. J. (2013) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.001 · Cited by 253
Self-citationBartram, D. J., Sinclair, J. M., & Baldwin, D. S. (2013) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0144-4 · Cited by 76
Measuring activities of daily living in Parkinson’s disease: On a road to nowhere and back again?
Hagell, P. (2019) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2018.09.050 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Cano, S., Cano, S., & Hobart
- Venue
- Patient Preference and Adherence
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 279
- ISSN
- 1177-889X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023970026
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 7.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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 problem with health measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2147/ppa.s14399
- The paper
- Cano, S., Cano, S., & Hobart. (2011). The problem with health measurement. Patient Preference and Adherence. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s14399
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.