Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1713–1720 | Cite as

Getting serious about test–retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations

  • Denise F. Polit
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To focus attention on the need for rigorous and carefully designed test–retest reliability assessments for new patient-reported outcomes and to encourage retest researchers to be thoughtful, ambitious, and creative in their retest efforts.

Methods

The paper outlines key challenges that confront retest researchers, calls attention to some limitations in meeting those challenges, and describes some strategies to improve retest research.

Results

Modest retest coefficients are often reported as acceptable, and many important decisions—such as the retest interval—appear not to be evidence-based. Retest assessments are seldom undertaken before a measure has been finalized, which rules out using retest data to select strong, reproducible items.

Conclusions

Strategies for improving retest research include seeking input from patients or experts regarding the stability of the construct to support decisions about the retest interval, analyzing item-level retest data to identify items to revise or discard, establishing a priori standards of acceptability for reliability coefficients, using large, heterogeneous, and representative retest samples and collecting follow-up data to better understand consistent and inconsistent responses over time.

Keywords

COSMIN Instrument development Measurement Patient-reported outcome Psychometrics Reliability Test–retest reliability 

References

  1. 1.
    Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., Bass, B., DeVet, H., Duffy, H., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1161–1175.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C., Patrick, D., Alonso, J., Stratford, P., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and application (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Streiner, D. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 217–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeVet, H. C. W., Terwee, C., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U. S. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry, patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polit, D. F., & Yang, F. (2014). Measurement and the measurement of change: A primer for health professionals. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cronbach, L. (1947). Test “reliability”: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 12, 1–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Courvoisier, D., Cullati, S., Haller, C., Schmidt, R., Haller, G., Agoritsas, T., et al. (2013). Validation of a 10-item Care-related Regret Intensity Scale (RAI-10) for health care professionals. Medical Care, 51, 285–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon, A. E., Forbes, L., Boniface, D., Warburton, F., Brain, K., Dessaix, A., et al. (2012). An international measure of awareness and beliefs about cancer: Development and testing of the ABC. BMJ Open, 2(6). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001758.
  12. 12.
    Poelman, M. P., Vermeer, W. M., Vyth, E., & Steenhuis, I. (2013). “I don’t have to go to the gym because I ate very healthy today”: The development of a scale to assess diet-related compensatory health beliefs. Public Health Nutrition, 16, 267–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma, X., Barnes, T. L., Freedman, D., Bell, B., Colabianchi, N., & Liese, A. (2013). Test–retest reliability of a questionnaire measuring perceptions of neighbourhood food environment. Health & Place, 21, 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kröz, M., Schad, F., Reif, M., von Laue, H., Feder, G., Zerm, R., et al. (2011). Validation of the state version questionnaire on autonomic regulation (state-aR) for cancer patients. European Journal of Medical Research, 16, 457–468.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 319–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual difference constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tourangeau, R., Lance, J. R., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality-of-life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Towards a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Geere, J. H., Geere, J. L., & Hunter, P. R. (2013). Meta-analysis identifies Back Pain Questionnaire reliability influenced more by instrument than study design or population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 261–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polit, D., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nevo, B. (1977). Using item test–retest stability (ITRS) as a criterion for item selection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 847–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ashford, S., Turner-Stokes, L., Siegert, R., & Slade, M. (2013). Initial psychometric evaluation of the Arm Activity Measure (ArmA): A measure of activity in the hemiparetic arm. Clinical Rehabilitation, 27, 728–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, R. R., & Goldberg, L. R. (1967). Interrelationships among personality scale parameters: Item response stability and scale reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yorke, J., Swigris, J., Russell, A., Moosavi, S. H., Kwong, G. N. M., Longshaw, M., et al. (2011). Dyspnea-12 is a valid and reliable measure of breathlessness in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest, 139, 159–164.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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(4 suppl), 142S–158S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giraudeau, B., & Mary, J. Y. (2001). Planning a reproducibility study: How many subjects and how many replicates per subject for an expected width of 95 percent confidence interval for the intraclass correlation coefficient? Statistics in Medicine, 20, 3205–3214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R., Bouter, L. M., & DeVet, H. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651–657.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanalysis, Inc.Saratoga SpringsUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Health Practice InnovationGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations