BACKGROUND: A self-report questionnaire is the most widely used method to assess (in)patients' satisfaction with (hospital) care. However, problems like nonresponse, missing values, and skewed score distributions may threaten the representativeness, validity, and reliability of results. We investigated which of alternative item-response formats maximizes desired outcomes. DESIGN: Five formats were compared on the basis of sample characteristics, psychometric properties at the scale and item levels, and patients' opinions of the questionnaire. SUBJECTS: Consecutively discharged patients (n=784) were sampled, of which a representative (sex, age, length of hospital stay) subsample of 514 (65%) responded. MEASURES: A 54-item satisfaction questionnaire addressing 12 aspects of care was used. Patients responded using either a 10-step evaluation scale ranging from "very poor" to "excellent" (E10), a 5-step evaluation scale ranging from "poor" to "excellent" (E5), or a 5-step satisfaction scale ranging from "dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" (S5). The 5-step scales were administered with response options presented as either boxed scale steps to be marked or words to be circled. RESULTS: E5 scales yielded lower means than S5 scales. However, at the item level, the S5 scale showed better construct validity, more variability, and less peaked score distributions. Circling words yielded fewer missing item scores than marking boxes. The E5 scale showed more desirable score distributions than the E10 scale, but construct validity and reliability were lower. CONCLUSIONS: No large differences among formats were found. However, if individual items are important carriers of information, a (5-step) satisfaction response scale, with response options presented in words next to each item, appears to be the optimal format.
BACKGROUND: A self-report questionnaire is the most widely used method to assess (in)patients' satisfaction with (hospital) care. However, problems like nonresponse, missing values, and skewed score distributions may threaten the representativeness, validity, and reliability of results. We investigated which of alternative item-response formats maximizes desired outcomes. DESIGN: Five formats were compared on the basis of sample characteristics, psychometric properties at the scale and item levels, and patients' opinions of the questionnaire. SUBJECTS: Consecutively discharged patients (n=784) were sampled, of which a representative (sex, age, length of hospital stay) subsample of 514 (65%) responded. MEASURES: A 54-item satisfaction questionnaire addressing 12 aspects of care was used. Patients responded using either a 10-step evaluation scale ranging from "very poor" to "excellent" (E10), a 5-step evaluation scale ranging from "poor" to "excellent" (E5), or a 5-step satisfaction scale ranging from "dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" (S5). The 5-step scales were administered with response options presented as either boxed scale steps to be marked or words to be circled. RESULTS: E5 scales yielded lower means than S5 scales. However, at the item level, the S5 scale showed better construct validity, more variability, and less peaked score distributions. Circling words yielded fewer missing item scores than marking boxes. The E5 scale showed more desirable score distributions than the E10 scale, but construct validity and reliability were lower. CONCLUSIONS: No large differences among formats were found. However, if individual items are important carriers of information, a (5-step) satisfaction response scale, with response options presented in words next to each item, appears to be the optimal format.
Authors: Onyebuchi A Arah; A H A ten Asbroek; Diana M J Delnoij; Johan S de Koning; Piet J A Stam; Aldien H Poll; Barbara Vriens; Paul F Schmidt; Niek S Klazinga Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Anu Birla Bakshi; Shiou-Liang Wee; Charlene Tay; Loong-Mun Wong; Ian Yi-Onn Leong; Reshma A Merchant; Nan Luo Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Leila Moret; Emmanuelle Anthoine; Cécile Paillé; Sophie Tricaud-Vialle; Laurent Gerbaud; Alexandra Giraud-Roufast; Philippe Michel; Pierre Lombrail Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2012-01-31
Authors: Eric A Coleman; Jodi D Smith; Janet C Frank; Theresa B Eilertsen; Jill N Thiare; Andrew M Kramer Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Jyoti Khadka; Vijaya K Gothwal; Colm McAlinden; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Konrad Pesudovs Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-07-13 Impact factor: 3.186