, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 363–370 | Cite as

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcomes

Content Validity and Qualitative Research in a Changing Clinical Trial Environment
Leading Article


Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) represent the voice of the patient in drug and device evaluation. As such, the outcomes selected for evaluation must be relevant to the patient, and the instruments used to capture them must have sound measurement properties. This paper discusses the role of qualitative research methods in assuring PRO clarity and content validity in a clinical trial environment characterized by evolving regulatory policy, new advances in technology and increasingly diverse samples within global clinical trials. Three important PRO measurement issues influenced by these changes are addressed: (i) endpoint selection and instrument development; (ii) the adaptation of instruments for electronic administration; and (iii) conceptual equivalence of measures across diverse samples. These are viewed as interrelated issues of content validity that can be addressed through the appropriate and rigorous application of qualitative research methods. Focus groups, cognitive debriefing, user acceptance testing and translation methodologies are discussed as ways to address and document the content validity of PRO instruments and ensure the empirical data representing the voice of the patient is sound.


Focus Group Differential Item Functioning Content Validity Qualitative Research Method Instrument Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are employed by the United BioSource Corporation (UBC), which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government and non-government organizations. In this salaried position, the authors work with a variety of companies and organizations. They receive no payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered.

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.


  1. 1.
    US EDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
  2. 2.
    US EDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry and review staff: target product profile. Strategic development process tool. 2007 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
  3. 3.
    US EDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. EDA’s critical path initiative [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
  4. 4.
    Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993 Dec; 2 (6): 441–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Revicki DA. EDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research. Lancet 2007 Feb 17; 369 (9561): 540–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rock EP. Conceptual framework of an instrument [presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Drug Information Association; 2006 Jun 19; Philadelphia (PA) [online]. Available from URL:,11,Conceptual%20Framework%20of%20an%20Instrument [Accessed 2007 Aug 24]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 2006 Apr; 40 (4): 314–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Draper AK. The principles and application of qualitative research. Proc Nutr Soc 2004 Nov; 63 (4): 641–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tobin GA, Begley CM. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. J Adv Nurs 2004 Nov; 48 (4): 388–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW. Focus groups: theory and practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 2006Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 1998Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004 Feb; 24 (2): 105–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willis G. Cognitive interviewing. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 2005Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aquilino WS. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: a field experiment. Public Opin Q 1994; 58 (2): 210–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 2000Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Couper MP, et al. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: web and US mail. J Stud Alcohol 2002 Nov; 63 (6): 755–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Newman JC, Des Jarlais DC, Turner CF, et al. The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. Am J Public Health 2002 Feb; 92 (2): 294–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tourangeau R, Smith W. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 1996; 60 (2): 275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Step-by-step usability guide [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
  23. 23.
    Fayers PM. Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 Suppl. 1: 187–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogers HJ, Swaminathan H, Hambleton RK. Fundamentals of item response theory. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc., 1991Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cella D, Lloyd S, Wright B. Cross-cultural instrument equating: current research and future directions. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 707–715Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flaherty JA, Gaviria FM, Pathak D, et al. Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. J Nerv Ment Dis 1988 May; 176 (5): 257–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. ‘Equivalence’ and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. Qual Life Res 1997 Apr; 6 (3): 237–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van de Vijver F. Towards a theory of bias and equivalence. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial 1998; 42: 41–65Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zheng YP, Wei LA, GoaL G, et al. Applicability of the Chinese beck depression inventory. Compr Psychiatry 1988 Sep–Oct; 29 (5): 484–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Willgerodt MA. Using focus groups to develop culturally relevant instruments. West J Nurs Res 2003 Nov; 25 (7): 798–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cull A, Sprangers M, Bjordal K, et al. EORTC Quality of Life Group translation procedure. 2nd ed. Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group, 2002Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 2005 Jun; 28 (2): 212–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (12): 1465–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sartorius N, Kuyken W. Translation of health status instruments. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, editors. Quality of life assessment: international perspectives. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1994: 3–18Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of thelSPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005 Mar-Apr; 8 (2): 94–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hunt S. Cross-cultural issues in the use of quality of life measures in randomized controlled trials. In: Staquet M, Hays R, Fayers P, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998: 51–68Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lenderking WR. Comments on the ISPOR Task Force report on translation and adaptation of outcomes measures: guidelines and the need for more research. Value Health 2005 Mar-Apr; 8 (2): 92–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swaine-Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, et al. Adapting quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004 Sep–Oct; 7 Suppl. 1: S27–S30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United BioSource CorporationBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations