24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychometric validation of the Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQv2) in the context of the NHS Coronary Revascularisation PROMs Pilot

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 4
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We tested the psychometric properties of a modified version (CROQv2) when administered in a National Health Service (NHS)/Department of Health (DH) funded pilot of PROMs for coronary revascularisation.

          Design

          Psychometric validation study.

          Setting

          11 English hospitals in the UK taking part in the NHS/DH funded pilot of PROMs for coronary revascularisation.

          Participants

          Comprehensive analyses of acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness were conducted independently for each of the prerevascularisation (n=2685 and n=3711) and postrevascularisation (n=869 and n=837) versions of the CROQ-CABG and CROQ-PCI, respectively.

          Results

          All versions met prespecified stringent criteria for (1) acceptability of items (missing data) and scales (missing data, floor and ceiling effects, skewness); (2) tests of scaling assumptions; (3) reliability: internal consistency (Cronbach's α, item-total correlations); (4) construct validity based on within-scale analyses (internal consistency, intercorrelations between scales, factor analysis and hypothesis testing); (5) construct validity based on comparisons with external measures (convergent and discriminant validity and hypothesis testing) and (6) responsiveness. Results were also confirmed when tests were repeated on subsamples of CABG (n=639) and PCI (n=615) patients who reported receiving help completing prerevascularisation questionnaires.

          Conclusions

          The availability of a psychometrically robust procedure-specific tool that could be used as part of a large-scale coronary revascularisation PROMs programme to capture the patients' perspective of coronary revascularisation will enable outcomes important to patients to be routinely collected alongside clinical outcomes. The CROQ is suitable for administration by postal survey or the prerevascularisation versions can be administered in the clinical setting as in the Coronary Revascularisation PROMs Pilot.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

          Interest has increased in recent years in incorporating health status measures into clinical practice for use at the individual-patient level. We propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: (1) practical features, (2) breadth of health measured, (3) depth of health measured, (4) precision for cross-sectional assessment, (5) precision for longitudinal monitoring and (6) validity. We evaluate five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) that have been proposed for use in clinical practice. We conducted an analytical literature review to evaluate the six measurement standards for individual-patient applications across the five surveys. The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications. Across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% CIs were very wide. There was little evidence of the validity of the five surveys for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The health status surveys examined in this paper may not be suitable for monitoring the health and treatment status of individual patients. Clinical usefulness of existing measures might be demonstrated as clinical experience is broadened. At this time, however, it seems that new instruments, or adaptation of existing measures and scaling methods, are needed for individual-patient assessment and monitoring.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement.

            The growing emphasis on patient-centered care has accelerated the demand for high-quality data from patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Traditionally, the development and validation of these measures has been guided by classical test theory. However, item response theory (IRT), an alternate measurement framework, offers promise for addressing practical measurement problems found in health-related research that have been difficult to solve through classical methods. This paper introduces foundational concepts in IRT, as well as commonly used models and their assumptions. Existing data on a combined sample (n = 636) of Korean American and Vietnamese American adults who responded to the High Blood Pressure Health Literacy Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 are used to exemplify typical applications of IRT. These examples illustrate how IRT can be used to improve the development, refinement, and evaluation of PRO measures. Greater use of methods based on this framework can increase the accuracy and efficiency with which PROs are measured.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quality of life index: development and psychometric properties.

              The purpose of the study on which this article is based was to assess the validity and reliability of an instrument designed to measure quality of life. Sixty-four items applicable to both healthy subjects and dialysis patients were tested with graduate students (n = 88); six items relative to dialysis were added, and the instrument was administered to dialysis patients (n = 37). Items were based on literature review, which supported content validity. Correlations between the instrument and an overall satisfaction with life question of 0.75 (graduate students) and 0.65 (dialysis patients) supported criterion-related validity. Support for reliability was provided by test-retest correlations of 0.87 (graduate students) and 0.81 (dialysis patients) and Cronbach's alphas of 0.93 (graduate students) and 0.90 (dialysis patients).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                28 February 2017
                : 7
                : 2
                : e015915
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The BMJ , London, UK
                [2 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [3 ]Miles & Green Associates , Oxford, UK
                [4 ]Institute of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital , Liverpool, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Sara Schroter; sschroter@ 123456bmj.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8791-8564
                Article
                bmjopen-2017-015915
                10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015915
                5337713
                28246146
                72d0388d-9e39-4748-b13b-91d9511ad564
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 9 January 2017
                : 2 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Department of Health, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000276;
                Categories
                Patient-Centred Medicine
                Research
                1506
                1722
                1683
                1704

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content308

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors261