Andrew M Garratt1, Jon Helgeland, Pål Gulbrandsen. 1. National Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, PO Box 23 Vinderen, 0319 Oslo, Norway. Andrew.Garratt@diakonsyk.no
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the data quality of two approaches to scaling items within the Patient Experiences Questionnaire (PEQ); a five-point scale with descriptors for all scale points and a 10-point scale with descriptors only at the end points. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The two versions were pretested through cognitive interviews with 14 patients. The PEQ was then mailed to 1,000 patients after inpatient treatment at a large university hospital in Norway, randomized to receive the 5- or 10-point scale versions. Response rates, missing data, item means, floor, and ceiling effects were assessed. Regression analysis was used to examine the impact of response scale on missing data, floor, and ceiling effects after controlling for age, education level, and health status. RESULTS: The five-point scale produced data with unimodal and fairly symmetric distributions in contrast to the highly skewed J- and U-shaped distributions for the 10-point scale. The five-point scale data had significantly lower item means, floor, and ceiling effects. Regression analysis showed that the type of scale explained a significant component of the variation in both floor and ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: The five-point scale performed better than the 10-point scale and is more suitable for assessing patient experiences. The revised PEQ will be used in Norwegian national surveys.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the data quality of two approaches to scaling items within the Patient Experiences Questionnaire (PEQ); a five-point scale with descriptors for all scale points and a 10-point scale with descriptors only at the end points. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The two versions were pretested through cognitive interviews with 14 patients. The PEQ was then mailed to 1,000 patients after inpatient treatment at a large university hospital in Norway, randomized to receive the 5- or 10-point scale versions. Response rates, missing data, item means, floor, and ceiling effects were assessed. Regression analysis was used to examine the impact of response scale on missing data, floor, and ceiling effects after controlling for age, education level, and health status. RESULTS: The five-point scale produced data with unimodal and fairly symmetric distributions in contrast to the highly skewed J- and U-shaped distributions for the 10-point scale. The five-point scale data had significantly lower item means, floor, and ceiling effects. Regression analysis showed that the type of scale explained a significant component of the variation in both floor and ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: The five-point scale performed better than the 10-point scale and is more suitable for assessing patient experiences. The revised PEQ will be used in Norwegian national surveys.
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