The Spirit of OMERACT: Q Methodology Analysis of Conference Characteristics Valued by Delegates

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Boers M,
   2. Brooks P,
   3. Strand CV,
   4. Tugwell P

   . The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998;25:198–9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
2. 2.↵
   OMERACT: Outcome measures in rheumatology. [Internet. Accessed June 23, 2015.] Available from: www.OMERACT.org.
3. 3.↵
   1. Boers M,
   2. Tugwell P,
   3. Felson DT,
   4. van Riel PL,
   5. Kirwan JR,
   6. Edmonds JP,
   7. et al.

   World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994 Sep;41:86–9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. van der Heijde D,
   2. Bellamy N,
   3. Calin A,
   4. Dougados M,
   5. Khan MA,
   6. van der Linden S

   . Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. J Rheumatol 1997;24:2225–9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Bellamy N,
   2. Kirwan J,
   3. Boers M,
   4. Brooks P,
   5. Strand V,
   6. Tugwell P,
   7. et al.

   Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 1997;24:799–802.

   OpenUrlPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Boers M,
   2. Kirwan JR,
   3. Wells G,
   4. Beaton D,
   5. Gossec L,
   6. d’Agostino M,
   7. et al.

   Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:745–53.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Bingham CO,
   2. Pohl C,
   3. Woodworth TG,
   4. Hewlett SE,
   5. May JE,
   6. Rahman MU,
   7. et al.

   Developing a standardized definition for disease “flare” in rheumatoid arthritis (OMERACT 9 Special Interest Group). J Rheumatol 2009;36:2335–41.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. de Wit MP,
   2. Abma TA,
   3. Koelewijn-van Loon MS,
   4. Collins S,
   5. Kirwan J

   . What has been the effect on trial outcome assessments of a decade of patient participation in OMERACT? J Rheumatol 2014;41:177–84.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Boers M,
   2. Kirwan J,
   3. Tugwell P,
   4. Beaton D,
   5. Bingham C III,
   6. Conaghan P,
   7. et al;
   8. The OMERACT handbook

   . 2014. [Internet. Accessed June 24, 2015.] Available from: www.omeract.org/pdf/OMERACT_Handbook.pdf
10. 10.↵
    1. Gallagher M,
    2. Hares T,
    3. Spencer J,
    4. Bradshaw C,
    5. Webb I

    . The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam Pract 1993;10:76–81.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Jones J,
    2. Hunter D

    . Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br Med J 1995;311:376–80.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Smith JA,
    2. Harre R,
    3. Lagenhove LV

    1. Stainton Rogers R

    . Q methodology. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Lagenhove LV, eds. Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage; 1995:178–92.
13. 13.↵
    1. Vacca JL,
    2. Johnson HA

    1. Sell DK,
    2. Brown SR

    . Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and quantitative research: application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign study program participants. In: Vacca JL, Johnson HA, eds. Qualitative research in education. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio: Bureau of Educational Research and Services; 1984:79–87.
14. 14.↵
    1. Burt C,
    2. Stephenson W

    . Alternative views on correlations between persons. Psychometrika 1939;4:269–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 15.↵
    1. iDENK

    . [Internet. Accessed June 23, 2015.] Available from: www.idenk.com/
16. 16.↵
    1. de Wit MP,
    2. Koelewijn-van Loon MS,
    3. Collins S,
    4. Abma TA,
    5. Kirwan J

    . “If I wasn’t this robust”: Patients’ expectations and experiences at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Conference 2010. Patient 2013;6:179–87.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. de Wit M,
    2. Abma T,
    3. Koelewijn-van Loon M,
    4. Collins S,
    5. Kirwan J

    . Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: a responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002241.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Hackert and Braeler

    . FlashQ. [Internet. Accessed June 23, 2015.] Available from: www.hackert.biz/flashq/home/
19. 19.↵
    1. McKeown B,
    2. Thomas D

    . Q methodology. London: Sage; 1988.
20. 20.↵
    1. Todd Z,
    2. Nerlich B,
    3. McKeown S,
    4. Clarke D

    1. Stenner P,
    2. Rogers RS

    . Q methodology and qualiquantology: The example of discriminating between emotions. In: Todd Z, Nerlich B, McKeown S, Clarke D, eds. Mixing methods in psychology: the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. New York: Psychology Press; 2004:101–20.
21. 21.↵
    1. Stricklin M,
    2. Almeida R

    . PCQ for Windows (Academic Edition 1.4, 2004).
22. 22.↵
    1. Stenner P,
    2. Dancey C,
    3. Watts S

    . The understanding of their illness amongst people with irritable bowel syndrome: a Q methodological study. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:439–52.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Watts S,
    2. Stenner P

    . Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage; 2012.
24. 24.↵
    1. Stephenson W

    . The inverted factor technique. Br J Psychol 1936;26:344–61.

    OpenUrl
25. 25.↵
    1. Fouad MN,
    2. Partridge E,
    3. Green BL,
    4. Kohler C,
    5. Wynn T,
    6. Nagy S,
    7. et al.

    Minority recruitment in clinical trials: a conference at Tuskegee, researchers and the community. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10:S35–40.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed