Selected Measurement Websites
Measurement Evaluation Grids (MEGs) a collaboration between the Hebrew Home at Riverdale and the RCMAR Measurement & Methods Workgroup
The Measurement Evaluation Grids (MEGS) provides information for summary reviews of measures. Unlike other reviews, the focus of the MEGS and these reviews is on the use and psychometric qualities of the measures with respect to ethnically diverse groups. Currently there are 40 MEGS on cognitive measures, 10 on affective suffering and 13 on quality-of-life.
The RAND Health program has produced a number of significant surveys and tools for improving quality of care and evaluating health outcomes during its 35 year history. This website provides a wide range of survey instruments and tools including measures developed to assess the appropriateness of medical treatments, assessing care of vulnerable elders, the CAHPS patient evaluation of care surveys, the SF-36 version 1 and many other health-related quality of life surveys, a homelessness survey, and quality of care assessment tools. Many are available in multiple languages. All of the surveys and tools from RAND Health are available without charge for non-commercial purposes.
Note that "All of the surveys and tools from RAND Health are public documents, available without charge (for non-commercial purposes)."
The PROMIS initiative established a collaborative relationship between NIH and individual research teams through a cooperative agreement. The broad objectives of the network are: * Develop and test a large bank of items measuring patient-reported outcomes; * Create a computerized adaptive testing system that allows for efficient, psychometrically robust assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial research involving a wide range of chronic diseases; * Create a publicly available system that can be added to and modified periodically and that allows clinical researchers to access a common repository of items and computerized adaptive tests. The network collaborated on the collection of self-reported data from diverse populations of individuals with a variety of chronic diseases, using agreed-upon methods, modes, and questionnaires.
For an analysis of how PROMIS measures compare to "legacy" measures, see the PROSetta Stone project report at http://www.mss.northwestern.edu/Grants%20and%20Research/ProSetta%20Stone%20Analysis%202-12.pdf (additional information may also be at http://www.mss.northwestern.edu/).
A database and web site for information on specific evidence-based health care quality measures and measure sets. NQMC is sponsored by AHRQ to promote widespread access to quality measures by the health care community and other interested individuals. The site includes structured, standardized abstracts (summaries) containing information about measures and their development, a utility for comparing attributes of two or more quality measures in a side-by-side comparison, and links to full-text quality measures (when available) and/or ordering details for the full measure.
Developed by Mapi Research Institute, ProQolid aims to identify and describe PRO and QOL instruments to help you choose appropriate instruments and facilitate your access to them. Free access is available to all ProQolid visitors at no charge. For each instrument in the database, you will find 14 categories of basic information (e.g., author, objective, mode of administration, original language, existing translations, pathology, number of items, etc.). ProQolid content is based on information collected in the literature and/or validated by the authors of the instruments. The adequacy of study methodology and psychometric properties is not evaluated.
Contains information about instruments in the health and related sciences, as well as organizational behavior and library and information science. HaPI is available through Ovid Technologies through either individual or institutional subscription, check with your university library.
Offers survey researchers, and others, help in addressing two long-standing questions: (1) How can we do survey research if different respondents (perhaps from different cultures, countries, or ethnic groups) understand questions in completely different ways, or if investigators mean one thing and respondents think they mean something else? (2) How can we develop accurate measures of complicated concepts which we can define only by example ("you know it when you see it"), and when attempts to produce more concrete questions tend to be more concrete but no more valid? This site provides a basic overview of anchoring vignettes that can be used to standardize questions across groups, along with links to the supporting literature.
Resources from the National Cancer Institute (NIH) on methods to develop and test questionnaires, including established Questionnaire Design Principles, empirical methods such as Cognitive Testing and psychometric methods such as Item Response Theory Modeling.
(For a more extensive and less selective listing see http://www.chime.ucla.edu/measurement/webresources.htm)