Digital measures are becoming more prevalent in clinical development. Methods for robust evaluation are increasingly well defined, yet the primary barrier for digital measures to transition beyond exploratory usage often relies on a comparison to the existing standards. This article focuses on how researchers should approach the complex issue of comparing across assessment modalities. We discuss comparisons of subjective versus objective assessments, or performance-based versus behavioral measures, and we pay particular attention to the situation where the expected association may be poor or nonlinear. We propose that, rather than seeking to replace the standard, research should focus on a structured understanding of how the new measure augments established assessments, with the ultimate goal of developing a more complete understanding of what is meaningful to patients.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7768118 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000511586 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!