Iterative, stakeholder-informed instrument development cycle¶
Design Process · All design processes
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 3 studies (3 design),q1–q2· 0 of 3 report an effect size · 4 claims rest on one study
Description¶
This development pattern adapts an intervention-development framework to build a descriptive clinical instrument through repeated cycles of drafting, expert consultation, piloting, feasibility testing, and refinement, with patients, patient representatives, therapists, and researchers involved throughout. The article lists the steps: "(1) a literature review; (2) defining the construct and determining a theoretical framework; (3) initial selection of questions and prompts; (4) expert consultation; (5) piloting the interview; (6) conducting a feasibility study; and (7) refining the interview." An initial pool of 201 open-ended questions was clustered and reduced to 116 items, then through expert marking and discussion to successive drafts of 32 and finally 26 questions. The process ran from June 2022 to January 2025.
Design Implications¶
Context¶
Requirements¶
- Access to stakeholder groups with experiential and expert knowledge willing to mark questions essential or redundant
- A mechanism for resolving disagreements between raters through author discussion
Constraints¶
- The adapting team notes the absence of formal guidelines tailored to descriptive clinical interviews, which may have led aspects unique to clinical interviews to be overlooked
- Questions generated primarily from existing literature and expert opinion inherit those sources' varying conceptualizations
Target Learners¶
- instrument developers and clinical researchers
- patient representatives and clinician consultants
Target Goals¶
- developing and refining a descriptive assessment instrument
- incorporating experiential-knowledge feedback into design
Claims¶
- Veterans and clinicians rate the CIMI-M as feasible, acceptable, and clinically useful in a preliminary evaluation [+W]
- Qualitative analysis finds the CIMI-M helped veterans share experiences and helped clinicians build trust and plan treatment [+W]
- Distinguishing classroom and research contexts in survey questions was a key outcome of student validation interviews [+W]
- Delphi and wider-review feedback led Level 4 to be repositioned as beyond AI literacy, clarifying the boundary of AI literacy [+W]
Related Patterns¶
Examples¶
-
Key Sources¶
- de Goede, M. L., Boelen, P. A., Litz, B. T., & ter Heide, F. J. J. (2026). Mapping moral injury: Development and feasibility of the Clinical Interview for Moral Injury—military version (CIMI-M). PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359553
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
process |
id |
iterative-stakeholder-instrument-development |
title |
Iterative, stakeholder-informed instrument development cycle |
description |
This development pattern adapts an intervention-development framework to build a descriptive clinical instrument through repeated cycles of drafting, expert consultation, piloting, feasibility testing, and refinement,... |
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — de-goede-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.