Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperReviewResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Danilo Carrozzino, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • ,
  • Chiara Patierno, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • ,
  • Jenny Guidi, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • ,
  • Carmen Berrocal Montiel, University of Pisa
  • ,
  • Jianxin Cao, Soochow University
  • ,
  • Mary E Charlson, Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluative Sciences Research
  • ,
  • Kaj Sparle Christensen
  • John Concato, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
  • ,
  • Carlos De Las Cuevas, Division of Experimental Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
  • ,
  • Jose de Leon, University of Kentucky Mental Health Research Center at Eastern State Hospital
  • ,
  • Ajandek Eöry, Semmelweis Univ, Semmelweis University, Heart & Vasc Ctr
  • ,
  • Marcelo Pio Fleck, Laboratory of Molecular Psychiatry, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
  • ,
  • Toshi A Furukawa, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health
  • ,
  • Ralph I Horwitz, Temple Univ, Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE), Temple University, Dept Urol
  • ,
  • Andrew A Nierenberg
  • Chiara Rafanelli, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • ,
  • Hongxing Wang, Capital Medical University
  • ,
  • Thomas N Wise, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Translational Research in Psychiatry, Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Münster, Germany.
  • ,
  • Nicoletta Sonino, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • ,
  • Giovanni A Fava, University at Buffalo , Buffalo Buffalo, New York , USA

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are self-rated scales and indices developed to improve the detection of the patients' subjective experience. Given that a considerable number of PROMs are available, it is important to evaluate their validity and usefulness in a specific research or clinical setting. Published guidelines, based on psychometric criteria, do not fit in with the complexity of clinical challenges, because of their quest for homogeneity of components and inadequate attention to sensitivity. Psychometric theory has stifled the field and led to the routine use of scales widely accepted yet with a history of poor performance. Clinimetrics, the science of clinical measurements, may provide a more suitable conceptual and methodological framework. The aims of this paper are to outline the major limitations of the psychometric model and to provide criteria for clinimetric patient-reported outcome measures (CLIPROMs). The characteristics related to reliability, sensitivity, validity, and clinical utility of instruments are critically reviewed, with particular reference to the differences between clinimetric and psychometric approaches. Of note is the fact that PROMs, rating scales, and indices developed according to psychometric criteria may display relevant clinimetric properties. The present paper underpins the importance of the clini-metric methodology in choosing the appropriate PROMs. CLIPROM criteria may also guide the development of new indices and the validation of existing PROMs to be employed in clinical settings.

Original languageEnglish
JournalPsychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Volume90
Issue4
Pages (from-to)222-232
Number of pages11
ISSN0033-3190
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Bibliographical note

© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.

    Research areas

  • Assessment, Clinimetrics, Criteria, Indices, Patientreported outcome measures, Psychometrics, Rating scales, Sensitivity, Validity

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 217447389