OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reliability and validity of survey measures used to evaluate health plans and providers from the consumer's perspective. DATA SOURCES: Members (166,074) of 306 U.S. health plans obtained from the National CAHPS Benchmarking Database 2.0, a voluntary effort in which sponsors of CAHPS surveys contribute data to a common repository. STUDY DESIGN: Members of privately insured health plans serving public and private employers across the United States were surveyed by mail and telephone. Interitem correlations and correlations of items with the composite scores were estimated. Plan-level and internal consistency reliability are estimated. Multivariate associations of composite measures with global ratings are also examined to assess construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis is used to examine the factor structure of the measure. FINDINGS: Plan-level reliability of all CAHPS 2.0 reporting composites is high with the given sample sizes. Fewer than 170 responses per plan would achieve plan-level reliability of .70 for the five composites. Two of the composites display high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > or = .75), while responses to items in the other three composites were not as internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha from .58 to .62). A five-factor model representing the CAHPS 2.0 composites fits the data better than alternative two- and three-factor models. CONCLUSION: Two of the five CAHPS 2.0 reporting composites have high internal consistency and plan-level reliability. The other three summary measures were reliable at the plan level and approach acceptable levels of internal consistency. Some of the items that form the CAHPS 2.0 adult core survey, such as the measure of waiting times in the doctor's office, could be improved. The five-dimension model of consumer assessments best fits the data among the privately insured; therefore, consumer reports using CAHPS surveys should provide feedback using five composites.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reliability and validity of survey measures used to evaluate health plans and providers from the consumer's perspective. DATA SOURCES: Members (166,074) of 306 U.S. health plans obtained from the National CAHPS Benchmarking Database 2.0, a voluntary effort in which sponsors of CAHPS surveys contribute data to a common repository. STUDY DESIGN: Members of privately insured health plans serving public and private employers across the United States were surveyed by mail and telephone. Interitem correlations and correlations of items with the composite scores were estimated. Plan-level and internal consistency reliability are estimated. Multivariate associations of composite measures with global ratings are also examined to assess construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis is used to examine the factor structure of the measure. FINDINGS: Plan-level reliability of all CAHPS 2.0 reporting composites is high with the given sample sizes. Fewer than 170 responses per plan would achieve plan-level reliability of .70 for the five composites. Two of the composites display high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > or = .75), while responses to items in the other three composites were not as internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha from .58 to .62). A five-factor model representing the CAHPS 2.0 composites fits the data better than alternative two- and three-factor models. CONCLUSION: Two of the five CAHPS 2.0 reporting composites have high internal consistency and plan-level reliability. The other three summary measures were reliable at the plan level and approach acceptable levels of internal consistency. Some of the items that form the CAHPS 2.0 adult core survey, such as the measure of waiting times in the doctor's office, could be improved. The five-dimension model of consumer assessments best fits the data among the privately insured; therefore, consumer reports using CAHPS surveys should provide feedback using five composites.
Authors: J L Hargraves; R H Palmer; J Zapka; D Nerenz; H Frazier; E J Orav; C Warner; J Ingard; R Neisuler Journal: Clin Perform Qual Health Care Date: 1993 Oct-Dec
Authors: Jessica N Mittler; Bruce E Landon; Elliot S Fisher; Paul D Cleary; Alan M Zaslavsky Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Brian D Sites; Jordon Harrison; Michael D Herrick; Melissa M Masaracchia; Michael L Beach; Matthew A Davis Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Craig Evan Pollack; Katrina A Armstrong; Nandita Mitra; Xinwei Chen; Katelyn R Ward; Archana Radhakrishnan; Michelle S Wong; Justin E Bekelman; Charles C Branas; Karin V Rhodes; David T Grande Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Maike V Tietschert; Federica Angeli; Arno J A van Raak; Dirk Ruwaard; Sara J Singer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Xiao Xu; Eugenia Buta; Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Ron D Hays; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 3.402