如何提高临床使用的患者报告结果测量的可解释性:从测量能力和感受的角度

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
J. Kopec
{"title":"如何提高临床使用的患者报告结果测量的可解释性:从测量能力和感受的角度","authors":"J. Kopec","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S355679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Two general classes of concepts measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are abilities and feelings. Over the past several decades, there has been a significant progress in measuring both. Nevertheless, current multi-item scales are subject to criticism related to scale length, score dimensionality, interpretability, cultural bias, and insufficient detail in measuring specific domains. To address some of these issues, the author offers an alternative perspective on how questions about abilities and feelings could be formulated. Abilities can be defined in terms of a relationship between the level of performance and the associated perception of difficulty, and represented graphically by an ability curve. For feelings, it may be useful to measure frequency and intensity jointly to determine the proportion of time in each level of intensity. The resultant frequency × intensity matrix can be presented as a bar graph. Empirical data to support the feasibility and validity of these approaches to PROM design are provided, potential advantages and limitations are discussed, and some future research avenues are suggested.","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Improve Interpretability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Clinical Use: A Perspective on Measuring Abilities and Feelings\",\"authors\":\"J. Kopec\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PROM.S355679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Two general classes of concepts measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are abilities and feelings. Over the past several decades, there has been a significant progress in measuring both. Nevertheless, current multi-item scales are subject to criticism related to scale length, score dimensionality, interpretability, cultural bias, and insufficient detail in measuring specific domains. To address some of these issues, the author offers an alternative perspective on how questions about abilities and feelings could be formulated. Abilities can be defined in terms of a relationship between the level of performance and the associated perception of difficulty, and represented graphically by an ability curve. For feelings, it may be useful to measure frequency and intensity jointly to determine the proportion of time in each level of intensity. The resultant frequency × intensity matrix can be presented as a bar graph. Empirical data to support the feasibility and validity of these approaches to PROM design are provided, potential advantages and limitations are discussed, and some future research avenues are suggested.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S355679\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S355679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)测量的两大类概念是能力和感觉。在过去的几十年里,在衡量这两方面都取得了重大进展。然而,目前的多项目量表在量表长度、得分维度、可解释性、文化偏见和测量特定领域的细节不足等方面受到批评。为了解决其中的一些问题,作者提供了一个关于能力和情感问题如何形成的另一种观点。能力可以根据表现水平和相关难度感知之间的关系来定义,并通过能力曲线图形化地表示出来。对于感觉,联合测量频率和强度来确定时间在每个强度级别中的比例可能是有用的。得到的频率×强度矩阵可以用柱状图表示。本文提供了实证数据来支持这些方法在PROM设计中的可行性和有效性,讨论了潜在的优势和局限性,并提出了一些未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How to Improve Interpretability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Clinical Use: A Perspective on Measuring Abilities and Feelings
Abstract Two general classes of concepts measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are abilities and feelings. Over the past several decades, there has been a significant progress in measuring both. Nevertheless, current multi-item scales are subject to criticism related to scale length, score dimensionality, interpretability, cultural bias, and insufficient detail in measuring specific domains. To address some of these issues, the author offers an alternative perspective on how questions about abilities and feelings could be formulated. Abilities can be defined in terms of a relationship between the level of performance and the associated perception of difficulty, and represented graphically by an ability curve. For feelings, it may be useful to measure frequency and intensity jointly to determine the proportion of time in each level of intensity. The resultant frequency × intensity matrix can be presented as a bar graph. Empirical data to support the feasibility and validity of these approaches to PROM design are provided, potential advantages and limitations are discussed, and some future research avenues are suggested.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信