“It’s Valid and Reliable” Is Not Enough

Background. This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards. Methods. We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers. Results. Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21%) and validity (16%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. Conclusions. Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies.

[1]  Karen R. Sepucha,et al.  Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[2]  D. Patrick Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[3]  E. Emanuel,et al.  Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Cynthia Helba,et al.  Grid-enabled measures: using Science 2.0 to standardize measures and share data. , 2011, American journal of preventive medicine.

[5]  C. Waltz,et al.  Measurement in Nursing and Health Research , 2010 .

[6]  N. Ditsch,et al.  Contextual factors in shared decision making: a randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  C. Bennett,et al.  Appraisal of primary outcome measures used in trials of patient decision support. , 2008, Patient education and counseling.

[8]  Lee Sechrest,et al.  Validity of measures is no simple matter. , 2005, Health services research.

[9]  Steven J. Osterlind,et al.  Modern Measurement: Theory, Principles, and Applications of Mental Appraisal , 2005 .

[10]  Patrick E. McKnight,et al.  Calibration of measures for psychotherapy outcome studies. , 1996, The American psychologist.

[11]  S. Messick Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons' Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning. Research Report RR-94-45. , 1994 .

[12]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  Jörg Dirmaier,et al.  Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments. , 2011, Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen.

[14]  Floyd J. Fowler,et al.  A Randomized Trial of a Multimedia Shared Decision-Making Program for Men Facing a Treatment Decision for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia , 1997 .