IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i5p560-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“It’s Valid and Reliable†Is Not Enough

Author

Listed:
  • Karen R. Sepucha
  • Daniel D. Matlock
  • Celia E. Wills
  • Mary Ropka
  • Natalie Joseph-Williams
  • Dawn Stacey
  • ChirkJenn Ng
  • Carrie Levin
  • Joanne Lally
  • Cornelia M. Borkhoff
  • Richard Thomson

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen R. Sepucha & Daniel D. Matlock & Celia E. Wills & Mary Ropka & Natalie Joseph-Williams & Dawn Stacey & ChirkJenn Ng & Carrie Levin & Joanne Lally & Cornelia M. Borkhoff & Richard Thomson, 2014. "“It’s Valid and Reliable†Is Not Enough," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 560-566, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:560-566
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14528381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14528381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14528381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:560-566. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.