The distinction between psychometric and clinimetric approaches will not move the field forward

2021/08/03 by Tim Kaiser, Philipp Herzog, Wolfgang Lutz +3 · 1 voice
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Medicine · Social Sciences · #Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life #Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life #Delphi Technique in Research

paper · pdf · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q5efb

Abstract

We read the article “Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures” with great interest. Highlighting certain test characteristics for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that seem to be neglected in the psychometric literature is a commendable endeavor. We share the authors' intention of supporting clinical practice by providing the most useful and well-validated PROMs possible. However, in our view, the article contains several inconsistencies that may limit its usefulness for moving the field forward.

Citations

• The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies.
• Dimensions over categories: a meta-analysis of taxometric research

Discussions

• @tkaiser.science et al. (2021). The distinction between psychometric and clinimetric approaches will not move the field forward. doi.org/10.31234/osf... [bsky, 7 points, 1 comments]

Related

• ‘We're not going to start lifting stones now…’: Stakeholder perspectives on the role of psychometric methods in outcome measurement
• Idiographic patient reported outcome measures (I‐PROMs) for routine outcome monitoring in psychological therapies: Position paper
• The mere-measurement effect of patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
• Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM
• Valid and Reliable? Basic and Expanded Recommendations for Psychometric Reporting and Quality Assessment.