Interpretation of COSMIN risk of bias checklist in evaluating risk of bias of studies on reliability, measurement error and criteria validity of patient-reported outcome measures_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

PENG Jian ^1,2 , SHEN Lanjun ^1,3 , CHEN Yiting ¹ , ZHOU Tong ^1,2 , CUI Yuanbin ^1,2 , ZOU Luoluo ^1,2 ,  HU Yan ^1,2

1. School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, P.R.China;
2. Evidence-Based Nursing Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, P.R.China;
3. East China Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

HU Yan, Email: huyan@fudan.edu.cn

Keywords：

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); Risk of bias; Reliability; Measurement error; Criteria validity; COSMIN

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202003164

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

The COSMIN-RoB checklist includes three sections with a total of 10 boxes, which is used to evaluate risk of bias of studies on content validity, internal structure, and other measurement properties. COSMIN classifies reliability, measurement error, criteria validity, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness as other measurement properties, which primarily focus on the quality of the (sub)scale as a whole, rather than on the item level. Among the five measurement properties, reliability, measurement error and criteria validity are the most widely used in the studies. Therefore, this paper aims to interpret COSMIN-RoB checklist with examples to guide researchers to evaluate the risk of bias of the studies on reliability, measurement error and criteria validity of PROMs.

Citation： PENG Jian, SHEN Lanjun, CHEN Yiting, ZHOU Tong, CUI Yuanbin, ZOU Luoluo, HU Yan. Interpretation of COSMIN risk of bias checklist in evaluating risk of bias of studies on reliability, measurement error and criteria validity of patient-reported outcome measures. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(11): 1340-1344. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202003164 Copy

1.	Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5): 1147-1157.
2.	Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5): 1171-1179.
3.	彭健, 沈蓝君, 陈祎婷. COSMIN-RoB清单简介及测量工具内部结构研究的偏倚风险清单解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(10): 1234-1240.
4.	姜晓莹. 青少年生命质量量表(YQOL-R)的汉化研究. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014.
5.	刘树榆, 章秀明, 钟杰. 少年精神病态特质量表中文版的效度和信度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2018, 32(8): 682-688.
6.	Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick 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): 737-745.
7.	van Leeuwen LM, Mokkink LB, Kamm CP, et al. Measurement properties of the arm function in multiple sclerosis questionnaire (AMSQ): a study based on classical test theory. Disabil Rehabil, 2017, 39(20): 2097-2104.
8.	Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull, 1979, 86(2): 420-428.
9.	Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (5th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
10.	Mcgraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods, 1996, 1(4): 390-390.
11.	de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
12.	de Vet HC, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, et al. Clinicians are right not to like Cohen's κ. BMJ, 2013, 346: f2125.
13.	Cohen J. Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull, 1968, 70(4): 213-220.
14.	Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas, 1973, 33(3): 613-619.
15.	de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol, 2006, 59(10): 1033-1039.

1. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5): 1147-1157.
2. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5): 1171-1179.
3. 彭健, 沈蓝君, 陈祎婷. COSMIN-RoB清单简介及测量工具内部结构研究的偏倚风险清单解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(10): 1234-1240.
4. 姜晓莹. 青少年生命质量量表(YQOL-R)的汉化研究. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014.
5. 刘树榆, 章秀明, 钟杰. 少年精神病态特质量表中文版的效度和信度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2018, 32(8): 682-688.
6. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick 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): 737-745.
7. van Leeuwen LM, Mokkink LB, Kamm CP, et al. Measurement properties of the arm function in multiple sclerosis questionnaire (AMSQ): a study based on classical test theory. Disabil Rehabil, 2017, 39(20): 2097-2104.
8. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull, 1979, 86(2): 420-428.
9. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (5th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
10. Mcgraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods, 1996, 1(4): 390-390.
11. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
12. de Vet HC, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, et al. Clinicians are right not to like Cohen's κ. BMJ, 2013, 346: f2125.
13. Cohen J. Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull, 1968, 70(4): 213-220.
14. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas, 1973, 33(3): 613-619.
15. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol, 2006, 59(10): 1033-1039.

Previous Article
Measurement methods of dyspnea in clinical trials of acute heart failure
Next Article
Minimal clinically important difference: terminology and estimated methods

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Interpretation of COSMIN risk of bias checklist in evaluating risk of bias of studies on reliability, measurement error and criteria validity of patient-reported outcome measures

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content