Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Quality of Life Research 4/2019

Open Access 01-04-2019 | Brief Communication

Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula

Authors: Shanshan Qin, Lauren Nelson, Lori McLeod, Sonya Eremenco, Stephen Joel Coons

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2009 guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describes how the Agency evaluates the psychometric properties of measures intended to support medical product labeling claims. An important psychometric property is test–retest reliability. The guidance lists intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the assessment time period as key considerations for test–retest reliability evaluations. However, the guidance does not provide recommendations regarding ICC computation, nor is there consensus within the measurement literature regarding the most appropriate ICC formula for test–retest reliability assessment. This absence of consensus emerged as an issue within Critical Path Institute’s PRO Consortium. The purpose of this project was to generate thoughtful and informed recommendations regarding the most appropriate ICC formula for assessing a PRO measure’s test–retest reliability.

Methods

Literature was reviewed and a preferred ICC formula was proposed. Feedback on the chosen formula was solicited from psychometricians, biostatisticians, regulators, and other scientists who have collaborated on PRO Consortium initiatives.

Results and conclusions

Feedback was carefully considered and, after further deliberation, the proposed ICC formula was confirmed. In conclusion, to assess test–retest reliability for PRO measures, the two-way mixed-effect analysis of variance model with interaction for the absolute agreement between single scores is recommended.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133.
2.
go back to reference Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 231–240.PubMed Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 231–240.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Lee, K., Lee, J., Park, M., et al. (2012). Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery [serial online], 4(2), 149–155.CrossRef Lee, K., Lee, J., Park, M., et al. (2012). Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery [serial online], 4(2), 149–155.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sen, R., Yip, C., & Severson, K. (2017). The use of intra-class correlation coefficients to assess test-retest reliabilities in psychometric evaluations of patient reported outcome measures. Poster presented at: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 20th Annual European Congress (November 8). Scotland: 2017; Glasgow. Sen, R., Yip, C., & Severson, K. (2017). The use of intra-class correlation coefficients to assess test-retest reliabilities in psychometric evaluations of patient reported outcome measures. Poster presented at: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 20th Annual European Congress (November 8). Scotland: 2017; Glasgow.
5.
go back to reference Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefPubMed Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.CrossRef McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12, 142S–158S.CrossRefPubMed Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12, 142S–158S.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Coons, S. J., Kothari, S., Monz, B. U., & Burke, L. B. (2011). The Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 90, 743–748.CrossRef Coons, S. J., Kothari, S., Monz, B. U., & Burke, L. B. (2011). The Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 90, 743–748.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lundy, J. J., Coons, S. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2014). Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 23, 229–237.CrossRefPubMed Lundy, J. J., Coons, S. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2014). Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 23, 229–237.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Schuck, P. (2014). Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: Which coefficient should be used? Quality of Life Research, 13, 571–585.CrossRef Schuck, P. (2014). Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: Which coefficient should be used? Quality of Life Research, 13, 571–585.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Zou, K. H., & McDermott, M. P. (1999). Higher-moment approaches to approximate interval estimation for a certain intraclass correlation coefficient. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 2051–2061.CrossRefPubMed Zou, K. H., & McDermott, M. P. (1999). Higher-moment approaches to approximate interval estimation for a certain intraclass correlation coefficient. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 2051–2061.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ionan, A. C., Polley, M. C., et al. (2014). Comparison of confidence interval methods for an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ionan, A. C., Polley, M. C., et al. (2014). Comparison of confidence interval methods for an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula
Authors
Shanshan Qin
Lauren Nelson
Lori McLeod
Sonya Eremenco
Stephen Joel Coons
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Quality of Life Research 4/2019 Go to the issue