A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures

View/ Open
File version
Accepted Manuscript (AM)
Author(s)
Bull, Claudia
Byrnes, Joshua
Hettiarachchi, Ruvini
Downes, Martin
Year published
2019
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN ...
View more >OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests. CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.
View less >
View more >OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests. CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.
View less >
Journal Title
Health Services Research
Copyright Statement
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals Inc. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures, Health Services Research, AOV, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13187. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html)
Note
This publication has been entered into Griffith Research Online as an Advanced Online Version.
Subject
Health economics