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

Author:
Top Cited Papers
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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.

This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit: