PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of different reporting period lengths on the accuracy of items measuring interference due to pain and fatigue with work, walking, and relations with others. METHODS: Six items from well-established instruments (Brief Pain Inventory, Brief Fatigue Inventory, SF-36) were investigated in a prospective study of 117 patients with chronic rheumatological illness. Daily ratings were compared with recall ratings of 1, 3, 7, and 28-day reporting periods. RESULTS: The level of recall ratings (RRs) for reporting periods of 3 days or more were significantly higher than the level of aggregated end-of-day (EOD) ratings. Correspondence between aggregated EOD and RRs was good (r ≥ .80) regardless of the length of the reporting period. Ratings of interference for a single day were highly correlated with aggregated EOD for up to 14 days prior to the single rating (r ≥ .76). CONCLUSIONS: Recall ratings with reporting periods of up to a month yield good correspondence with aggregated daily ratings, although the absolute level of the rating will be inflated for recall periods of 3 days or longer.
PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of different reporting period lengths on the accuracy of items measuring interference due to pain and fatigue with work, walking, and relations with others. METHODS: Six items from well-established instruments (Brief Pain Inventory, Brief Fatigue Inventory, SF-36) were investigated in a prospective study of 117 patients with chronic rheumatological illness. Daily ratings were compared with recall ratings of 1, 3, 7, and 28-day reporting periods. RESULTS: The level of recall ratings (RRs) for reporting periods of 3 days or more were significantly higher than the level of aggregated end-of-day (EOD) ratings. Correspondence between aggregated EOD and RRs was good (r ≥ .80) regardless of the length of the reporting period. Ratings of interference for a single day were highly correlated with aggregated EOD for up to 14 days prior to the single rating (r ≥ .76). CONCLUSIONS:Recall ratings with reporting periods of up to a month yield good correspondence with aggregated daily ratings, although the absolute level of the rating will be inflated for recall periods of 3 days or longer.
Authors: Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Gregory Vikingstad; Michelle Pribbernow; Steven Grossman; Arthur A Stone Journal: Pain Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David M Condon; Robert Chapman; Sara Shaunfield; Michael A Kallen; Jennifer L Beaumont; Daniel Eek; Debanjali Mitra; Katy L Benjamin; Kelly McQuarrie; Jamae Liu; James W Shaw; Allison Martin Nguyen; Karen Keating; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Amylou C Dueck; Antonia V Bennett; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Thomas M Atkinson; Yuelin Li; Kathleen M Castro; Andrea Denicoff; Lauren J Rogak; Richard L Piekarz; Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Joan E Broderick; Doerte U Junghaenel; Stefan Schneider; John J Pilosi; Arthur A Stone Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Stefan Schneider; Joan E Broderick; Doerte U Junghaenel; Joseph E Schwartz; Arthur A Stone Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Christopher Christodoulou; Stefan Schneider; Doerte U Junghaenel; Joan E Broderick; Arthur A Stone Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Stefan Schneider; Seung W Choi; Doerte U Junghaenel; Joseph E Schwartz; Arthur A Stone Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 4.147