I find little to disagree with in a letter to the editor from Weinfurt and Flynn¹ in response to my recent article in Journal of Clinical Oncology titled “Validation of patient-reported outcomes: A low bar.”² The target of the critique in my editorial was a narrow view of questionnaire validation and implementation. In brief, show that a questionnaire correlates well with something that it should, and less well with something it should not, and you are done: the questionnaire is ready for use in research and the clinic, and even the most trivial change would render it invalid.

中文翻译：

---

回复 KP Weinfurt 等人。


在 Weinfurt 和 Flynn ¹写给编辑的信中，我对我最近在《临床肿瘤学杂志》上发表的题为“患者报告结果的验证：门槛较低”的文章的回应没有什么不同意见。 ²我的社论批评的目标是对问卷验证和实施的狭隘观点。简而言之，表明调查问卷与它应该的东西相关性很好，而与它不应该的东西相关性较差，然后你就完成了：调查问卷已准备好用于研究和临床，即使是最微不足道的改变也会使它变得不那么重要。无效的。