Universitat Internacional de Catalunya

Development and Validation of Clinical Assessment Tools

Development and Validation of Clinical Assessment Tools
4
12182
1
Second semester
OB
Main language of instruction: Spanish

Other languages of instruction: Catalan, English

Teaching staff


Dr. GARCÍA FORERO, Carlos - cgarciaf@uic.es

To be agreed with the teacher

Competences/Learning outcomes of the degree programme

  • CB10 - To have the learning competences that allow them to continue to study in a way that will have to be mainly independent.
  • CB6 - To have and understand knowledge that provide a basis or opportunity to be original in terms of the applkication of ideas, often within a research context.
  • CB7 - To know how to apply the knowledge acquired and resolve problems in unknown or little known environments within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to their area of study.
  • CB8 - To able to incorporate their knowledge and cope with the complexity of formulating judgements based on information that, since it is incomplete or limited, includes reflections on the social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application of their knowledge and judgements.
  • CB9 - To be able to communicate their conclusions and the knowledge and arguments supporting these conclusions to specialised and non-specialised audiences in a clear and unambiguous manner.
  • CE1 - To know how to apply scientific methods, experimental design and biostatistics to answer a question or corroborate a hypothesis in a clinical setting.
  • CE10 - The ability to critically analyse and discuss research results and transmit the relevant outcomes
  • CE2 - To know how to design a research project within a specific context in a clinical setting
  • CE3 - To know how to describe both the quantitative and qualitative methodological designs used in health research in the healthcare environment.
  • CE4 - To know how to use critical assessment tools for qualitative and quantitative research articles
  • CE5 - To know how to apply the language of scientific writing when communicating health outcomes
  • CE6 - To know how to describe and apply the most common techniques for exploring and analysing data, the relationship between variables or categories and/or corroborating hypotheses in both quantitative and qualitative research.
  • CE7 - To know how to identify health problems on which research may be undertaken and to apply specific techniques to analyse and assess such problems,
  • CE8 - To know how to assess research projects and protocols
  • CE9 - To know how to apply specific theoretical and practical knowledge to health science research.
  • CG1 - The ability to incorporate new knowledge acquired through research and study and cope with complexity.
  • CG2 - The ability to critically analyse and discuss research results and transmit the relevant outcomes.
  • CG3 - The ability to draw up research questions and put them into operation as research projects and formulate evidence-based research hypotheses.
  • CG4 - The ability to articulate and defend one's own scientific ideas in an ethical way with regard to the research process
  • CT1 - The ability to integrate within an established, multidisciplinary and multicultural work team.

Learning outcomes of the subject

 

Syllabus

1. Protocol of research to adapt or create a scale of measure

  • Technical requirements
  • Ethical requirements: author’s permission and informed consent

2. Adaptation process

  • Translation 
  • Cultural adaptation 

3. Item generation 

  • Construct definitions
  • Item types and self-reported tools
  • Emptying primary sources
  • Conceptual Analysis
  • Focus groups and cognitive interviews

4. Psychometric indicators and scoring 

  • Measurement models
  • Types of Reliability 
  • Validity and Evidence 
  • Scores and Norms 

 

Evaluation systems and criteria

In blended



The evaluation is based on two aspects:

Continuous evaluation (total 50%)

1) Participation and input in the classroom: students are expected to participate actively and dynamically in the classroom. These contributions will be based on the debate generated on reading and active contributions relevant to the dynamics of the classroom (15%)

2) Deliveries: each week an exercise will be proposed based on the aspects discussed in the classroom. The following week this exercise will be delivered as Moodle homework (15%)

3) Assessment of the quality of a psychometric instrument using the EMPRO method (30%)

Final evaluation (total 50%)

Final exam of the subject with 20 questions (4 options discount of 33% for errors) and 1 practical case.

The activities to be delivered will be done through the Moodle of the course. The final exam will be done, depending on the epidemic situation and the student, in online or face-to-face format.

Bibliography and resources

Manual 

- Aiken LR (11ª edicion) Tests psicológicos y evaluación. Cidad de Juárez(MEX): Pearson Educación, 2003

- Nunnally JC, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory (3th ed). New York: McGrawHill, 1994. Trad. esp de la 2a ed.: Teoría psicométrica. México: McGrawHill, 1995. 

Articles:
      1. Alonso J. La medida de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en la investigación y la práctica clínica. Gac Sanit 2000; 14 (2): 163-167. 
      2. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ 2004; 328:1312-1315. 
      3. Calvert et al. Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Trials The CONSORT PRO Extension JAMA 2013, 309:814-822
      4. Cook DA Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 2006, 119:116e7
      5. Côté-Arsenault D, Morrison-Beedy D. Mantaining your focus in focus groups: Avoiding common mistakes. Res Nurs Health 2005; 28:172-179. 
      6. Drennan J. Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and presenting of questionnaires. J Adv Nurs 2003; 42:65-63. 
      7. Deshpande et al. Patient Reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical  Research 2011, 2: 4
      8. Drost E. Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. Ed. Res. Perspectives. 2011, 38:1
      9. Green et al. Development and Evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire.  J. Am Coll Cardiol. 2000. 35:1245-55
      10. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, BeatonCross D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.J. Clin Epidemiology. 1993m 46(12):1417-32.
      11. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review an recommendations. J Clin Epidemiology 2000 53: 459-468
      12. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire.  J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (1): 81-7.
      13. McKenna S, Measuring Patient Reported Outcomes: moving beyond misplaces common sense to hard science. BMC Medicine 9:86
      14. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Medical Re Methodology, 2010 10:22
      15. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16:234-243.
      16.  Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust.  Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 193-205.
      17. Streiner DL Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assessment. 2003, 99-103
      18. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fischwick R, Platt S, Stephen S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation.Health and Quality of life outcomes, 2007, 5:63
      19. Valderas JM, Alonso J. Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice. Qual Life Res 2008:17 (9): 1125-35.
      20. Valderas JM, Ferrer M, Alonso J. Instrumentos de medida de calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y otros resultados percibidos por los pacientes. Med Clin (Barc) 2005; Dec 1;125 Suppl 1:56-60
Print version