Strategy and Methodology for Choice of Items in Psychometric Measurement: Designing a Quality of Life Instrument for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

  • Francis Guillemin
  • Joel Coste
  • Nathalie Retel-Rude
  • Elisabeth Spitz
  • Michèle Baumann
  • Cyrille Tarquinio
  • Catherine Luttenbacher
  • Jacques Pouchot
  • The French Quality of Life in Rheumatology Group

Abstract

The construction of composite health status or quality of life (QoL) measurement scales includes various steps, and aims to generate items with meaningful content. Standard scale construction has three stages: a qualitative stage, designed to achieve coverage of all potentially affected areas, a quantitative stage designed to test instrument scaling properties, and a stage of item selection to address feasibility and acceptability of the scale. The objectives of this paper are to investigate the relative contribution of several methods of item development and choice, to highlight the need for structuring the conceptual reflection on building an instrument, and to propose guidelines for structuring a quality of life questionnaire. As a model, we present a protocol for developing a QoL instrument for lower limbs osteoarthritis (OA). OA is a chronic disease with prevalence increasing with age. It may produce potentially severe ability limitations and social participation restrictions according to the ICIDH-2 classification. However, no real OA quality of life questionnaire has been yet developed. This study was conducted with 3 working hypotheses: (1) a generic questionnaire, the SF-36, is relevant to target consequences of lower limbs OA on patients QoL; (2) a condition specific questionnaire for lower limbs OA can be built as the combination of the SF-36 and a disease specific module; and (3) various item generation methods may each contribute relevant statements and words. These methods include cognitive interview of patients, individual or focus group interviews of patients, individual or focus group interviews of health professionals, followed by various methods of content analysis. Accordingly, the study will comprise five pathways aimed at generating items. A total of 128 OA patients and 32 health professionals will be interviewed. A trained team of sociologists will perform a semantic theme content analysis of tape-recorded and transcribed interviews. The next step consists of running content analysis completed by hierarchical cluster analysis. This will be used to identify relevant QoL dimensions. The second task will be to review the data analysis to identify verbatims pertaining to each dimension. Further analyses will identify the respective contribution of each method employed to generate items. The primary stages of composite scale construction include concepts specification and content descriptions. We expect to better document the relative contribution of each approach within each stage. We hope to contribute to future methodological guidelines to generate quality of life questionnaires.

Keywords

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Item Response Theory Focus Group Interview Cognitive Interview Item Selection 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychological Association (Ed.) (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Psychological Association (Ed.) (1974). Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Juniper, E.F., Guyatt, G.H., Streiner, D.L. and King, D.R. (1997). Clinical impact versus factor analysis for quality of life questionnaire construction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50, 233–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guyatt, G.H., Feehy, D.H. and Patrick, D.L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine 118, 622–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill, T.M. and Feinstein, A.R. (1994). A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 619–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leplège, A., Ecosse, E., Verdier, A., Perneger, T.V., Gandek, B. and Ware, J.E. (1998). Translating functional health and well-being: international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project studies of the SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51, 1013–1023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wechsler D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dazord, A., Gerin, P. and Boissel, J.P. (1994). Subjective quality of life assessment in therapeutic trials: presentation of a new instrument in France (SQLP: subjective quality of life profile) and first results. In: Orley, J. and Kuyken, W., (eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coste, J., Fermanian, J. and Venot, A. (1995). Methodological and statistical problems in the construction of composite measurement scales: a survey of six medical and epidemiological journals. Statistics in Medicine 14, 331–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marx, R.G., Bombardier, C., Hogg-Johnson, S. and Wright, J.G. (1999). Clinimetric and psychometric strategies for development of a health measurement scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52, 105–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lomas, J., Pickard, L. and Mohide, A. (1987). Patient versus clinician item generation for quality of life measures. The case of language-disabled adults. Medical Care 25, 764–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cella, D. and Chang, C.H. (2000). A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Medical Care 38 (supplement II), 11–66—II-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Streiner, D.L. and Norman, G.R. (1989). Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frost, N.A., Sparrow, J.M., Durant, J.S., Donovan, J.L., Peters, T.J., Brookes, S.T. (1998). Development of a questionnaire for measurement of vision-related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 5, 185–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mangione, C.M., Berry, S., Spritzer, K., Janz, N.K., Klein, R., Owsley, C. and Lee, P.P. (1998). Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Archives of Ophthalmology 116, 227–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Etter, J.F. and Perneger, T.V. (1997). Validating a satisfaction questionnaire using multiple approaches: a case study. Social Science & Medicine 45, 879–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson, J.S. and Ferrans, C.E. (1997). The quality of life of persons with chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders 185, 359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ICIDH-2. (1999). International Classification of Functioning and Disability. BETA-2 DRAFT short version — July 1999. Geneva: WHOGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The WHOQOL Group. (1995). The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the world health organization. Social Sciences & Medicines 41, 1403–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiklund, I., Romanus, B. and Hunt, S.M. (1988). Self-assessed disability in patients with arthrosis of the hip joint. Reliability of the Swedish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. International Disability Studies 10, 159–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGuigan, F., Hozack, W.J., Moriarty, L., Eng, K. and Rothman, R.H. (1995). Predicting quality-of-life outcomes following total joint arthroplasty. Limitations of the SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire. Journal of Arthroplasty 10, 742–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bombardier, C., Melfi, C.A., Paul, J., Green, R., Hawker, G., Wright, J. and Coyte, P. (1995). Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Medical Care 33 (supplement 4), AS131–144.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Melfi, C., Holleman, E., Arthur, D. and Katz B. (1995). Selecting a patient characteristics index for the prediction of medical outcomes using administrative claims data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 48, 917–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W.W., Goldsmith, C.H., Campbell, J. and Stitt, L.W. (1988). Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Journal of Rheumatology 15, 1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hays, R.D., Kallich, J.D., Mapes, D.L., Coons, S.J. and Carter, W.B. (1994). Development of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL™) Instrument. Quality of Life Research 3, 329–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu, A.W., Fink, N.E., Cagney, K.A., Bass, E.B., Rubin, H.R., Meyer, K.B., Sadler, J.H. and Powe, N.R. (2001). Developing a health-related quality-of-life measure for end-stage renal disease: the CHOICE health experience questionnaire. American Journal of Kidney Disease 37, 11–21.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vickrey, B.G., Hays, R.D., Harooni, R., Myers, L.W. and Ellison, G.W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research 4, 187–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N.J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S.B. and de Haes, J.C. S Kaasa, M Klee, Osoba, D., Razavi, D., Rofe, P.B., Schraub, S., Sneeuw, K., Sullivan, M. and Takeda, F. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of National Cancer Institute 85, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McQuellon, R.P., Russell, G.B., Cella, D.F., Craven, B.L., Brady, M., Bonomi, A. and Hurd, D.D. (1997). Quality of life measurement in bone narrow transplantation: development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) scale. Bone Marrow Transplant 19, 357–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geiselman, R.E., Fisher, R.P., McKinnon, D.P. and Holland, H.L. (1986). Enhancement eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. American Journal of Psychology 99, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newsbury park, CA, SageGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gustafson, D.H., Fryback, D.G., Rose, J.H., Yick, V., Prokop, C.T., Detmer, D.E. and Moore, J. (1986). A decision theoretic methodology for severity index development. Medical Decision Making 6, 27–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greene, J. and McClintock, C. (1985). Triangulation in evaluation, design and analysis issues. Evaluation Review 9, 523–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maggs-Rapport, F. (2000). Combining methodological approaches in research: ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31, 219–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56, 81–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Denzin, N.F. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Coste, J., Guillemin, F., Pouchot, J. and Fermanian, J. (1997). Methodological approaches to shortening composite measurement scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50, 247–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guillemin, F., Coste, J., Pouchot, J., Ghezail, M., Bregeon, C., Sany, J. and the French Quality of Life in Rheumatology Group. (1997). The AIMS-2-SF. A short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2. Arthritis and Rheumatism 40, 1267–1274.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis Guillemin
    • 1
  • Joel Coste
    • 2
  • Nathalie Retel-Rude
    • 3
  • Elisabeth Spitz
    • 4
  • Michèle Baumann
    • 1
  • Cyrille Tarquinio
    • 4
  • Catherine Luttenbacher
    • 3
  • Jacques Pouchot
    • 5
  • The French Quality of Life in Rheumatology Group
  1. 1.University of NancyFrance
  2. 2.Hôpital Cochin-ParisFrance
  3. 3.Université de BesançonFrance
  4. 4.Université de MetzFrance
  5. 5.Hôpital Louis Mourier-ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations