Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations

Qual Life Res. 2014 Aug;23(6):1713-20. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0632-9. Epub 2014 Feb 7.

Abstract

Purpose: To focus attention on the need for rigorous and carefully designed test-retest reliability assessments for new patient-reported outcomes and to encourage retest researchers to be thoughtful, ambitious, and creative in their retest efforts.

Methods: The paper outlines key challenges that confront retest researchers, calls attention to some limitations in meeting those challenges, and describes some strategies to improve retest research.

Results: Modest retest coefficients are often reported as acceptable, and many important decisions-such as the retest interval-appear not to be evidence-based. Retest assessments are seldom undertaken before a measure has been finalized, which rules out using retest data to select strong, reproducible items.

Conclusions: Strategies for improving retest research include seeking input from patients or experts regarding the stability of the construct to support decisions about the retest interval, analyzing item-level retest data to identify items to revise or discard, establishing a priori standards of acceptability for reliability coefficients, using large, heterogeneous, and representative retest samples and collecting follow-up data to better understand consistent and inconsistent responses over time.

Publication types

  • Validation Study

MeSH terms

  • Bias
  • Health Status Indicators*
  • Humans
  • Patient Outcome Assessment*
  • Psychometrics / methods
  • Psychometrics / standards*
  • Qualitative Research
  • Quality of Life*
  • Reproducibility of Results*
  • Research Personnel / standards
  • Surveys and Questionnaires