Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul;27(7):1893-1902.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y. Epub 2018 Apr 19.

The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL)

Janice Connell  1 , Jill Carlton  2 , Andrew Grundy  3 , Elizabeth Taylor Buck  2 , Anju Devianee Keetharuth  2 , Thomas Ricketts  2 , Michael Barkham  4   5 , Dan Robotham  6   7 , Diana Rose  6 , John Brazier  2
Affiliations

The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL)

Janice Connell et al. Qual Life Res. 2018 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: Service user involvement in instrument development is increasingly recognised as important, but is often not done and seldom reported. This has adverse implications for the content validity of a measure. The aim of this paper is to identify the types of items that service users felt were important to be included or excluded from a new Recovering Quality of Life measure for people with mental health difficulties.

Methods: Potential items were presented to service users in face-to-face structured individual interviews and focus groups. The items were primarily taken or adapted from current measures and covered themes identified from earlier qualitative work as being important to quality of life. Content and thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the types of items which were either important or unacceptable to service users.

Results: We identified five key themes of the types of items that service users found acceptable or unacceptable; the items should be relevant and meaningful, unambiguous, easy to answer particularly when distressed, do not cause further upset, and be non-judgemental. Importantly, this was from the perspective of the service user.

Conclusions: This research has underlined the importance of service users' views on the acceptability and validity of items for use in developing a new measure. Whether or not service users favoured an item was associated with their ability or intention to respond accurately and honestly to the item which will impact on the validity and sensitivity of the measure.

Keywords: Outcome measure; PROM; Qualitative; Quality of life; Recovery; Service users; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Edgbaston National Research Ethics Service Committee, West Midlands (14/WM/1062). Governance permission was obtained from each of the participating NHS Trusts.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study. Participants have consented to the possibility of using quotations in the research reports or other publications, after they have been anonymised.

References

    1. Department of Health . The NHS outcomes framework 2011–2012. London: Department of Health; 2010.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006;4:1–20. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton M, Jones D. Evaluating patient based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment. 1998;2:1–74. - PubMed
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. 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. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19:539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed