Literature DB >> 17295102

Mode effects in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale: personal digital assistant vs. paper and pencil administration.

Richard J Swartz1, Carl de Moor, Karon F Cook, Rachel T Fouladi, Karen Basen-Engquist, Cathy Eng, Cindy L Carmack Taylor.   

Abstract

As interest grows in creating computerized versions of established paper-and-pencil (P&P) questionnaires, it becomes increasingly important to explore whether changing the administration modes of questionnaires affects participants' responses. This study investigated whether mode effects exist when administering the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale by a personal digital assistant (PDA) versus the classic P&P mode. The Differential Functioning of Items and Tests (DFIT) procedure identified mode effects on the overall test and individual items. A mixed-effects regression model summarized the mode effects in terms of CES-D scores, and identified interactions with covariates. When the P&P questionnaire was administered first, scores were higher on average (2.4-2.8 points) than those of the other administrations (PDA second, PDA first, and P&P second), and all 20 questionnaire items exhibited a statistically significant mode effect. Highly educated people and younger people demonstrated a smaller difference in scores between the two modes. The mode-by-order effect influenced the interpretation of CES-D scores, especially when screening for depression using the established cut-off scores. These results underscore the importance of evaluating the cross-mode equivalence of psychosocial instruments before administering them in non-established modes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17295102     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-006-9158-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   3.440


  12 in total

1.  Computerized administration of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C) in psychosomatic outpatients

Authors: 
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  1999-10-11       Impact factor: 3.222

2.  Does computerizing paper-and-pencil job attitude scales make a difference? New IRT analyses offer insight.

Authors:  M A Donovan; F Drasgow; T M Probst
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2000-04

3.  Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurement.

Authors:  M Orlando; C D Sherbourne; D Thissen
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2000-09

4.  Measuring mood and complex behavior in natural environments: use of ecological momentary assessment in pediatric affective disorders.

Authors:  David A Axelson; Michele A Bertocci; Daniel S Lewin; Laura S Trubnick; Boris Birmaher; Douglas E Williamson; Neal D Ryan; Ronald E Dahl
Journal:  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.576

5.  IRT-related factor analytic procedures for testing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil and Internet-administered questionnaires.

Authors:  Pere J Ferrando; Urbano Lorenzo-Seva
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2005-06

6.  Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper and electronic diaries.

Authors:  Amie S Green; Eshkol Rafaeli; Niall Bolger; Patrick E Shrout; Harry T Reis
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2006-03

Review 7.  Computerized adaptive testing for the national certification examination.

Authors:  B A Bergstrom
Journal:  AANA J       Date:  1996-04

8.  A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall.

Authors:  A A Stone; J E Schwartz; J M Neale; S Shiffman; C A Marco; M Hickcox; J Paty; L S Porter; L J Cruise
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1998-06

9.  Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures.

Authors:  J A Teresi; M Kleinman; K Ocepek-Welikson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000 Jun 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact.

Authors:  John E Ware; Mark Kosinski; Jakob B Bjorner; Martha S Bayliss; Alice Batenhorst; Carl G H Dahlöf; Stewart Tepper; Andrew Dowson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  14 in total

1.  Factors associated with probability of personal digital assistant-based dietary self-monitoring in those with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Mary Ann Sevick; Roslyn A Stone; Susan Zickmund; Yuanyuan Wang; Mary Korytkowski; Lora E Burke
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2010-03-16

Review 2.  Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Claudia Rutherford; Daniel Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Holly Rice; Liam Gabb; Madeleine King
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Optical technologies and molecular imaging for cervical neoplasia: a program project update.

Authors:  Timon P H Buys; Scott B Cantor; Martial Guillaud; Karen Adler-Storthz; Dennis D Cox; Clement Okolo; Oyedunni Arulogon; Oladimeji Oladepo; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; José-Miguel Yamal; J Robert Beck; Michael E Scheurer; Dirk van Niekerk; Anais Malpica; Jasenka Matisic; Gregg Staerkel; Edward Neely Atkinson; Luc Bidaut; Pierre Lane; J Lou Benedet; Dianne Miller; Tom Ehlen; Roderick Price; Isaac F Adewole; Calum MacAulay; Michele Follen
Journal:  Gend Med       Date:  2011-09-22

4.  The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration.

Authors:  James Fries; Matthias Rose; Eswar Krishnan
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.666

5.  Differences in Patient Health Questionnaire and Aachen Depression Item Bank scores between tablet versus paper-and-pencil administration.

Authors:  Lena Spangenberg; Heide Glaesmer; Maren Boecker; Thomas Forkmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-13       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Niloufar Campbell; Faraz Ali; Andrew Y Finlay; Sam S Salek
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-02-22       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Technology and quality of life outcomes.

Authors:  Eileen Danaher Hacker
Journal:  Semin Oncol Nurs       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.315

8.  Differential symptom reporting by mode of administration of the assessment: automated voice response system versus a live telephone interview.

Authors:  Alla Sikorskii; Charles W Given; Barbara Given; Sangchoon Jeon; Mei You
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Negligible Effects of the Survey Modes for Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Authors:  Jin-Ah Sim; Geehong Hyun; Todd M Gibson; Yutaka Yasui; Wendy Leisenring; Melissa M Hudson; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin R Krull; I-Chan Huang
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2020-01

10.  Statistical considerations in the psychometric validation of outcome measures.

Authors:  Alla Sikorskii; Philip C Noble
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.