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


Journal article


Tim Kaiser, P. Herzog, W. Lutz, W. Rief, E. Brakemeier, Johannes Zimmermann
2021

Semantic Scholar DOI
Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Kaiser, T., Herzog, P., Lutz, W., Rief, W., Brakemeier, E., & Zimmermann, J. (2021). The distinction between psychometric and clinimetric approaches will not move the field forward.


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Kaiser, Tim, P. Herzog, W. Lutz, W. Rief, E. Brakemeier, and Johannes Zimmermann. “The Distinction between Psychometric and Clinimetric Approaches Will Not Move the Field Forward” (2021).


MLA   Click to copy
Kaiser, Tim, et al. The Distinction between Psychometric and Clinimetric Approaches Will Not Move the Field Forward. 2021.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{tim2021a,
  title = {The distinction between psychometric and clinimetric approaches will not move the field forward},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {},
  author = {Kaiser, Tim and Herzog, P. and Lutz, W. and Rief, W. and Brakemeier, E. and Zimmermann, Johannes}
}

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.





Follow this website


You need to create an Owlstown account to follow this website.


Sign up

Already an Owlstown member?

Log in