ICF Linking and Cognitive Interviewing Are Complementary Methods for Optimizing Content Validity of Outcome Measures: An Integrated Methods Review.
Joy C MacDermid
PMID 36188847WHAT IT FOUND
Outcome questionnaires may miss what matters to patients unless developers link items to ICF codes and test how patients interpret them.
Use both methods when choosing or adapting measures for functioning and disability.
Key findings
01ICF linking describes what an outcome measure contains, while cognitive interviewing tests how patients interpret and answer it, so the two methods are complementary.
02ICF linking was used across many disciplines and health conditions, mostly to evaluate existing patient-reported outcome measures rather than create new ones.
03Across 24 recent studies, reporting of ICF linking was inconsistent, and newer linking rules' perspective and response-option details were often missing.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a narrative review, not a test of whether any outcome measure improves patient care. The search was limited to papers that used ICF linking for content validity, so it may have missed relevant studies or used terms not captured. The authors' proposed summary indicators and cognitive interview classification were not validated in this paper. The review did not explore many other content-validity methods, such as content validity indices or concept mapping. It says little about which specific measure to use for a particular patient because it does not report clinical outcomes.
Declared interests
The work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research and named research chairs. The author declared no commercial or financial conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read ICF linking and cognitive interviewing as proof that a patient-reported outcome measure is valid for your patients. The review shows these methods help describe content and interpretation, but it does not test whether any specific measure improves care.