RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
A systematic review of instrument development and validation
Francis, D. O., Daniero, J. J., Hovis, K. L., Sathe, N., Jacobson, B., Penson, D. F., Feurer, I. D., & McPheeters, M. L. (2017). Voice-related patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review of instrument development and validation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 60(1), 62-88. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0022
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on voicerelated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults and to evaluate each instrument for the presence of important measurement properties.
Method: MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and voice. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed in consultation with an expert panel. Three independent investigators assessed study methodology using criteria developed a priori. Measurement properties were examined and entered into evidence tables.
Results: A total of 3,744 studies assessing voice-related constructs were identified. This list was narrowed to 32 PRO measures on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Questionnaire measurement properties varied widely. Important thematic deficiencies were apparent: (a) lack of patient involvement in the item development process, (b) lack of robust construct validity, and (c) lack of clear interpretability and scaling.
Conclusions: PRO measures are a principal means of evaluating treatment effectiveness in voice-related conditions. Despite their prominence, available PRO measures have disparate methodological rigor. Care must be taken to understand the psychometric and measurement properties and the applicability of PRO measures before advocating for their use in clinical or research applications.
