↓ Skip to main content

A novel method for expediting the development of patient-reported outcome measures and an evaluation of its performance via simulation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A novel method for expediting the development of patient-reported outcome measures and an evaluation of its performance via simulation
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0071-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lili Garrard, Larry R. Price, Marjorie J. Bott, Byron J. Gajewski

Abstract

Developing valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a critical step in promoting patient-centered health care, a national priority in the U.S. Small populations or rare diseases often pose difficulties in developing PROMs using traditional methods due to small samples. To overcome the small sample size challenge while maintaining psychometric soundness, we propose an innovative Ordinal Bayesian Instrument Development (OBID) method that seamlessly integrates expert and participant data in a Bayesian item response theory (IRT) with a probit link model framework. Prior distributions obtained from expert data are imposed on the IRT model parameters and are updated with participants' data. The efficiency of OBID is evaluated by comparing its performance to classical instrument development performance using actual and simulation data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION : The overall performance of OBID (i.e., more reliable parameter estimates, smaller mean squared errors (MSEs) and higher predictive validity) is superior to that of classical approaches when the sample size is small (e.g. less than 100 subjects). Although OBID may exhibit larger bias, it reduces the MSEs by decreasing variances. Results also closely align with recommendations in the current literature that six subject experts will be sufficient for establishing content validity evidence. However, in the presence of highly biased experts, three experts will be adequate. This study successfully demonstrated that the OBID approach is more efficient than the classical approach when the sample size is small. OBID promises an efficient and reliable method for researchers and clinicians in future PROMs development for small populations or rare diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 32%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Psychology 4 11%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,736,318
of 25,600,774 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,638
of 2,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,555
of 286,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,600,774 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.