Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 9/2009

01.11.2009

Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience

verfasst von: Meryl Brod, Laura E. Tesler, Torsten L. Christensen

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 9/2009

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

Establishing content validity for both new and existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is central to a scientifically sound instrument development process. Methodological and logistical issues present a challenge in regard to determining the best practices for establishing content validity.

Methods

This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding qualitative research to establish content validity based on the scientific methodological literature and authors’ experience.

Results

Conceptual issues and frameworks for qualitative interview research, developing the interview discussion guide, reaching saturation, analysis of data, developing a theoretical model, item generation and cognitive debriefing are presented. Suggestions are offered for dealing with logistical issues regarding facilitator qualifications, ethics approval, sample recruitment, group logistics, taping and transcribing interviews, honoraria and documenting content validity.

Conclusions

It is hoped this paper will stimulate further discussion regarding best practices for establishing content validity so that, as the PRO field moves forward, qualitative research can be evaluated for quality and acceptability according to scientifically established principles.
Vorheriger Artikel The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Nunally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed., p. 104). McGraw-Hill: New York.
2.
Leidy, N., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes. Content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370.PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collection and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2004). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 1–23). London: SAGE.
6.
Theobald, S., & Nhlema-Simwaka, B. (2008). The research, policy and practice interface: Reflections on using applied social research to promote equity in health in Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 760–770.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Friedland, G. H. (2006). HIV medication adherence: The intersection of biomedical, biobehavioral, and social science research and clinical practice. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 43(Suppl 1), 53–59.
8.
Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). British Medical Journal, 315, 740–743.PubMed
9.
Firestone, W. A., & Herriott, R. E. (1983). The formalization of qualitative research: An adaptation of “soft science” to the policy world. Evaluation Review, 7, 437–466.CrossRef
10.
Belue, R., Taylor-Richardson, K. D., Lin, J., Rivera, A. T., & Grandison, D. (2006). African Americans and participation in clinical trials: Differences in beliefs and attitudes by gender. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 27, 498–505.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Featherstone, K., & Donavan, J. L. (1998). Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 317, 1177–1180.PubMed
12.
Lawton, J., Fox, A., Fox, C., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2003). Participating in the United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS): A qualitative study of patients’ experiences. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 394–398.PubMed
13.
Madsen, S. M., Holm, S., & Riis, P. (2009). Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: An interview study using a grounded theory approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 234–240.CrossRef
14.
Marsden, J., & Bradburn, J. (2004). Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial. Health Expectations, 7, 6–17.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Paterniti, D. A., Chen, M. S., Chiechi, C., Beckett, L. A., Horan, N., Turrell, C., et al. (2005). Asian Americans and cancer clinical trials: A mixed-methods approach to understanding awareness and experience. Cancer Supplement, 104(12), 3015–3024.
16.
Silberfeld, M., Rueda, S., Krahn, M., & Naglie, G. (2002). Content validity for dementia of three generic preference based health related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research, 11, 71–79.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Waters, E., Maher, E., Salmon, L., Reddihough, D., & Boyd, R. (2005). Development of a condition-specific measure of quality of life for children with cerebral palsy: Empirical thematic data reported by parents and children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(2), 127–135.CrossRef
18.
Wieringa, N. F., Peschar, J. L., Denig, P., de Graeff, P. A., & Vos, R. (2003). Connecting pre-marketing clinical research and medical practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(1), 202–219.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press.
20.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRef
21.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 311–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing anf reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334–342.PubMed
24.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.CrossRef
27.
Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2006). Focus groups (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Quine, S., & Cameron, I. (1995). The use of focus groups with the disabled elderly. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 454–462.CrossRef
29.
Koppelman, N., & Bourjolly, J. (2001). Conducting focus groups with women with severe psychiatric disabilities: A methodological overview. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 25(2), 142–151.PubMed
30.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311, 299–302.PubMed
31.
Greenbaum, T. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Hollander, J. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602–637.CrossRef
34.
Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D., Cleeland, C. S., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S86–S93.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
36.
Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique, in theory? In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 23–44). New York: Wiley-IEEE.CrossRef
37.
Beatty, P. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 45–66). New York: Wiley-IEEE.CrossRef
38.
Cutliffe, J. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476–1484.CrossRef
39.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.CrossRef
40.
Poland, B. (2003). Transcription quality. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 267–288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Bernard, H. R. (2005). Research methods in anthropology (4th ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
42.
St John, W., & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(4), 393–397.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Jennings, B. (2007). Qualitative analysis: A case of software or ‘peopleware?’. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 483–484.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Morison, M., & Moir, J. (1998). The role of computer software in the analysis of qualitative data: Efficient clerk, research assistant or Trojan horse? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 106–116.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 219–262). London: Sage.
46.
Hruschka, D., Schwartz, D., St John, D., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R., & Carey, J. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 307–331.
47.
Rothman, M. L., Beltran, P., Cappelleri, J. C., Lipscomb, J., Teschendorf, B., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S66–S75.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
49.
Acquadro, C., Conway, C., Wolf, B., Anfray, C., Hareendran, A., Mear, I., et al. (2008). Development of a standardized classification system for the translations of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Quality of Life Newsletter, 39, 5.
50.
Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value in Health, 10(2), S94–S105.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1–25.
52.
53.
Krueger, R. (1995). The future of focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 524–530.CrossRef
54.
55.
56.
Revicki, D. A., Gnanasakthy, A., & Weinfurt, K. (2007). Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: The PRO evidence dossier. Quality of Life Research, 16, 717–723.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience
verfasst von
Meryl Brod
Laura E. Tesler
Torsten L. Christensen
Publikationsdatum
01.11.2009
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 9/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2009

Quality of Life Research 9/2009 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Impaired parent-reported quality of life in treatment-seeking children with obesity is mediated by high levels of psychopathology

OriginalPaper

Quality of life after dislocation of hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study on 319 patients with femoral neck fractures with a one-year follow-up

OriginalPaper

Measuring health-related quality of life in population-based studies of coronary heart disease: comparing six generic indexes and a disease-specific proxy score

OriginalPaper

The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: what do they have in common?

OriginalPaper

Assessment of the impact of eating disorders on quality of life using the disease-specific, Health-Related Quality of Life for Eating Disorders (HeRQoLED) questionnaire

OriginalPaper

Determinants of global quality of life before and after major cancer surgery: an exploratory study

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise