The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

By L. Mokkink, C. Terwee, D.walaa badawy, Jordi Alonso, P. Stratford, Dirk L. Knol, Lex M. Bouter, HC de Vet. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010

3,940 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Epidemiology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/14cb519bf8af85336677e5bf159110cda8ee50dc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Epidemiology

1. C. Terwee
2. HC de Vet

In Statistics and Probability

1. L. Mokkink
2. C. Terwee
3. C. Prinsen
4. HC de Vet
5. Lex M. Bouter
6. Jordi Alonso
7. D.walaa badawy
8. Mike Clarke

Citations in the corpus

• Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. (2012, background): “…(or structural) validity , criterion validity (relation to a gold standard), hypothesis testing (relation to other measures in a way an investigator would expect), and known-groups validity (anticipation of differences in scores between a certain specific known group) (Mokkink et al., 2010).”
• Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. (2017, methodology): “Pesquisadores recomendam que seja verificada a validade fatorial utilizando-se a análise fatorial confirmatória (confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) ao invés da análise fatorial exploratória (exploratory factor analysis [EFA]).(37) A EFA proporciona ao pesquisador a quantidade de fatores necessários”
• COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study (2018, background): “Content validity is the degree to which the content of an instrument is an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured [1].”
• How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline (2016, positive): “…to COSMIN, this includes two distinctive parts: (1) evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies by using the COSMIN checklist [6] and (2) evaluation of the quality of the OMIs (i.e., their measurement properties and feasibility aspects) by applying criteria for good…”
• Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. (2014, methodology): “Drawing on key developments that have occurred after the formulation of the first Filter such as the work by the COSMIN group [31,32], and the GRADE recommendations [30], OMERACT is developing specific guidelines on the procedures to document applicability of instruments.”
• A systematic review of evidence for the psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (2016, methodology): “Definitions used of measurement properties (R. Goodman, 1997; Mokkink et al., 2010; Streiner & Norman, 2008, pp. 261–263).”
• COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (2017, methodology): “The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist is a tool developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of PROMs [4, 5]; likewise, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool is ”
• Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures (2014, neutral): “The extraction reading grid was formulated based on psychometric properties definitions from the standard references [2,17].”
• The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument (2016, methodology): “2016 Mar-Apr; 20(2):105-113 there is still room for improvement with regards to the search strategy, and especially the quality assessment of the included studies and instruments as well as the data synthesis.”
• COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (2018, methodology): “Evaluate internal consistency Internal consistency refers to the degree of interrelatedness among the items and is often assessed by Cronbach’s alpha [30, 33].”