Volume 16, Issue 10 (January 2023)                   Qom Univ Med Sci J 2023, 16(10): 786-803 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.KAUMS.NUHEPM.REC.1401.047

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zare M, Tagharrobi Z. The Framework of Designing, Reporting, and Evaluating the Methodological Quality for Psychometric Studies: The Revised COSMIN Checklists. Qom Univ Med Sci J 2023; 16 (10) :786-803
URL: http://journal.muq.ac.ir/article-1-3594-en.html
The Framework of Designing, Reporting, and Evaluating the Methodological Quality for Psychometric Studies: The Revised COSMIN Checklists
Mohammad Zare1 , Zahra Tagharrobi * 2
1- Trauma Nursing Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
2- Trauma Nursing Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. , tagharrobi.za@kaums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (913 Views)
Background and Objectives: One of the challenges in studies related to measuring patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is the selection of an appropriate measurement tool. In this regard, compliance with standards in design and reporting of psychometric studies is necessity. In addition, researchers should be able to correctly evaluate the methodological quality of psychometric studies. Considering the presentation of the revised forms for the consensus-based standards for the selection of health Measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist, this study aims to review these checklists.
Methods: In this narrative review study, a search was conducted in national and international databases for articles measured the quality of psychometric studies by COSMIN checklist using related keywords in Persian and English with no time limitations. The results are presented in two sections, including the history of COSMIN checklist and the introduction of its revised forms.
Results: There are four COSMIN checklists, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist, the COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool (by focusing on reliability and measurement error), the COSMIN Study Design Checklist, and the COSMIN Reporting Guideline.
Conclusion: Considering the increasing number of psychometric studies on the PRO measurement tools, the COSMIN checklists can provide comprehensive indicators for designing, reporting, and evaluating these studies.
Keywords: Psychometrics, Checklist, Bias, Study design, Research report
Full-Text [PDF 932 kb]   (470 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (371 Views)  
Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: اپیدمیولوژی
Received: 2022/10/16 | Accepted: 2022/11/14 | Published: 2023/01/1
References
1. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1147-57. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3]
2. Griffiths C, Armstrong-James L, White P, Rumsey N, Pleat J, Harcourt D. A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in child and adolescent burn research. Burns. 2015; 41(2):212-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018]
3. Ritmala-Castren M, Lakanmaa RL, Virtanen I, Leino-Kilpi H. Evaluating adult patients' sleep: An integrative literature review in critical care. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014; 28(3):435-48.[DOI:10.1111/scs.12072] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/scs.12072]
4. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:2.[DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-6-2] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-6-2]
5. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Riphagen I, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(3):313-33. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9]
6. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21(4):651-7. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1]
7. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10:22. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-10-22] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-10-22]
8. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. 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; 19(4):539-49. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8]
9. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(7):1651-68. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0]
10. Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH. Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system in the context of work, daily living, and sport: A systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2005; 15(2):253-72. [DOI:10.1007/s10926-005-1223-y] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s10926-005-1223-y]
11. Marinus J, Ramaker C, van Hilten JJ, Stiggelbout AM. Health related quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review of disease specific instruments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002; 72(2):241-8. [DOI:10.1136/jnnp.72.2.241] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1136/jnnp.72.2.241]
12. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(7):737-45. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006]
13. Tate RL. Measuring outcomes and monitoring progress in the era of evidence-based clinical practice. Brain Impair. 2019; 20(3):276-88. [DOI:10.1017/BrImp.2019.28] [DOI:10.1017/BrImp.2019.28]
14. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HC. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(8):1115-23. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5]
15. Beattie M, Lauder W, Atherton I, Murphy DJ. Instruments to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals: A systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2014; 3:4. [DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-3-4] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-3-4]
16. Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2010. [Link]
17. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(1):34-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012]
18. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1171-9. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4]
19. COSMIN. Checklists for Assessing Study Qualities [Internet] 2022 [Updated 2023 April 18]. [Available from: [Link]
20. Mokkink LB, Boers M, van der Vleuten CPM, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: A Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):293. [DOI:10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5]
21. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Gut. 2020; 70:1-32. [DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320729] [PMID] [DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320729]
22. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011 [Updated 2011 March 11]. Available from: [Link]
23. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1159-70. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0]
24. Qin S, Nelson L, McLeod L, Eremenco S, Coons SJ. Assessing test-retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: Recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula. Qual Life Res. 2019; 28(4):1029-33. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0]
25. Gagnier JJ, Lai J, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB. COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30(8):2197-218. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4]
26. Bull C, Byrnes J, Hettiarachchi R, Downes M. A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures. Health Serv Res. 2019; 54(5):1023-35.[DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.13187] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.13187]
27. McKenna SP, Heaney A. Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: Can we rely on the COSMIN checklists? J Med Econ. 2021; 24(1):502-11. [DOI:10.1080/13696998.2021.1907092] [PMID] [DOI:10.1080/13696998.2021.1907092]
28. Szekeres M. Clinical relevance commentary in response to: The validity and clinical utility of the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire for hand injuries in developing country contexts: A systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2018; 31(1):91-2. [DOI:10.1016/j.jht.2017.12.002] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.jht.2017.12.002]
29. Kwok EYL, Rosenbaum P, Thomas-Stonell N, Cunningham BJ. Strengths and challenges of the COSMIN tools in outcome measures appraisal: A case example for speech-language therapy. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2021; 56(2):313-29.[DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12603] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12603]
30. de Vet HC, Adèr 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(5):1203-18. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Qom University of Medical Sciences Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb