Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2010

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Correspondence

The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink, Caroline B Terwee, Dirk L Knol, Paul W Stratford, Jordi Alonso, Donald L Patrick, Lex M Bouter, Henrica CW de Vet

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was developed in an international Delphi study to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient reported outcomes (HR-PROs). In this paper, we explain our choices for the design requirements and preferred statistical methods for which no evidence is available in the literature or on which the Delphi panel members had substantial discussion.

Methods

The issues described in this paper are a reflection of the Delphi process in which 43 panel members participated.

Results

The topics discussed are internal consistency (relevance for reflective and formative models, and distinction with unidimensionality), content validity (judging relevance and comprehensiveness), hypotheses testing as an aspect of construct validity (specificity of hypotheses), criterion validity (relevance for PROs), and responsiveness (concept and relation to validity, and (in) appropriate measures).

Conclusions

We expect that this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind the items, thereby enhancing the acceptance and use of the COSMIN checklist.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Powell C: The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003, 41: 376-382. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW: Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6: 2-10.1186/1471-2288-6-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010,
4.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW: The COSMIN checklist manual. [http://​cosmin.​nl]
5.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW: International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010,
6.
Cortina JM: What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychology. 1993, 78: 98-104. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.CrossRef
7.
Cronbach LJ: Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika. 1951, 16: 297-334. 10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRef
8.
Fayers PM, Hand DJ, Bjordal K, Groenvold M: Causal indicators in quality of life research. Qual Life Res. 1997, 6: 393-406. 10.1023/A:1018491512095.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Streiner DL: Being inconsistent about consistency: when coefficient alpha does and doesn't matter. J Pers Assess. 2003, 80: 217-222. 10.1207/S15327752JPA8003_01.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Heijden Van der GJ, Leffers P, Bouter LM: Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000, 53: 29-38. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00078-5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, Katz JN: A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrom. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1585-1592.PubMed
12.
Wilson IB, Cleary PD: Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995, 273: 59-65. 10.1001/jama.273.1.59.CrossRefPubMed
13.
World Health Organization: ICF: international classification of functioning, disability and health. 2001, Geneva: World Health Organization
14.
Strauss ME, Smith GT: Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008
15.
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE: Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955, 52: 281-302. 10.1037/h0040957.CrossRefPubMed
16.
McDowell I, Newell C: Measuring health. A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 1996, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2
17.
Messick S: The standard problem. Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist. 1975, 955-966. 10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.955.
18.
Altman DG: Practical statistics for medical research. 1991, London: Chapman & Hall/CRC
19.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, Van Mechelen W, De Vet HCW: Qualitative attributes and measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires: a checklist. Accepted for publication in Sports Med.
20.
De Boer MR, Terwee CB, De Vet HC, Moll AC, Völker-Dieben HJ, Van Rens GH: Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1. Qual Life Res. 2006, 15: 233-248. 10.1007/s11136-005-1524-9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 1988, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2
22.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR: Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res. 1995, 4: 293-307. 10.1007/BF01593882.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Norman GR: Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989, 42: 1097-1105. 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90051-6.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Stockler MR, Osoba D, Goodwin P, Corey P, Tannock IF: Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: a comparison of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial specific module. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998, 51: 137-145. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00269-2.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 2008, Oxford: University Press, 4CrossRef
26.
Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM: On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003, 12: 349-362. 10.1023/A:1023499322593.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman GR: Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987, 40: 171-178. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Floyd FJ, Widaman KF: Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment. 1995, 7: 286-299. 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.CrossRef
29.
De Vet HC, Ader HJ, Terwee CB, Pouwer F: Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2005, 14: 1203-1218. 10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3.CrossRefPubMed
30.
De Vet H, Beckerman H, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Bouter LM, for the clinimetrics working group: Definition of clinical differences. Letter to the Editor. J Rheumatol. 2006, 33: 434-PubMed
31.
Revicki DA, Hays RD, Cella DF, Sloan JA: Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61: 102-109. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP: A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001, 38: 195-200. 10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H: Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000, 32: 1008-1015. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x.PubMed
34.
Goodman CM: The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs. 1987, 12: 729-734. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content
Authors
Lidwine B Mokkink
Caroline B Terwee
Dirk L Knol
Paul W Stratford
Jordi Alonso
Donald L Patrick
Lex M Bouter
Henrica CW de Vet
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2010 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Methods for determining disease burden and calibrating national surveillance data in the United Kingdom: the second study of infectious intestinal disease in the community (IID2 study)

Study protocol

Design of a randomized trial to evaluate the influence of mobile phone reminders on adherence to first line antiretroviral treatment in South India - the HIVIND study protocol

Research article

Prediction of two month modified Rankin Scale with an ordinal prediction model in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

Research article

The impact of attrition on the representativeness of cohort studies of older people

Research article

Using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes to classify Computed Tomography (CT) features in the Marshall System

Research article

Successful Reach and Adoption of a workplace health promotion RCT targeting a group of high-risk workers