| Title |
A critical analysis of test-retest reliability in instrument validation studies of cancer patients under palliative care: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Eduardo Paiva, Eliane Marçon Barroso, Estela Cristina Carneseca, Cristiano de Pádua Souza, Felipe Thomé dos Santos, Rossana Verónica Mendoza López, Sakamoto Bianca Ribeiro Paiva |
| Abstract |
Patient-reported outcome validation needs to achieve validity and reliability standards. Among reliability analysis parameters, test-retest reliability is an important psychometric property. Retested patients must be in a clinically stable condition. This is particularly problematic in palliative care (PC) settings because advanced cancer patients are prone to a faster rate of clinical deterioration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methods by which multi-symptom and health-related qualities of life (HRQoL) based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been validated in oncological PC settings with regards to test-retest reliability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 209 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 48 | 23% |
| Unknown | 42 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 17% |
| Psychology | 25 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 40 | 19% |
| Unknown | 48 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,238,443
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,872
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,611
of 305,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#28
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.