Literature DB >> 21953305

The impact of misclassification due to survey response fatigue on estimation and identifiability of treatment effects.

Brian L Egleston1, Suzanne M Miller, Neal J Meropol.   

Abstract

Response fatigue can cause measurement error and misclassification problems in survey research. Questions asked later in a long survey are often prone to more measurement error or misclassification. The response given is a function of both the true response and participant response fatigue. We investigate the identifiability of survey order effects and their impact on estimators of treatment effects. The focus is on fatigue that affects a given answer to a question rather than fatigue that causes non-response and missing data. We consider linear, Gamma, and logistic models of response that incorporate both the true underlying response and the effect of question order. For continuous data, survey order effects have no impact on study power under a Gamma model. However, under a linear model that allows for convergence of responses to a common mean, the impact of fatigue on power will depend on how fatigue affects both the rate of mean convergence and the variance of responses. For binary data and for less than a 50% chance of a positive response, order effects cause study power to increase under a linear probability (risk difference) model but decrease under a logistic model. The results suggest that measures designed to reduce survey order effects might have unintended consequences. We present a data example that demonstrates the problem of survey order effects.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21953305      PMCID: PMC3552436          DOI: 10.1002/sim.4377

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  10 in total

1.  Reports of fewer activity limitations: recovery, survey fatigue, or switching respondent?

Authors:  Steven C Hill; Yuriy Pylypchuk
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Expected estimating equations for missing data, measurement error, and misclassification, with application to longitudinal nonignorable missing data.

Authors:  C Y Wang; Yijian Huang; Edward C Chao; Marjorie K Jeffcoat
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-06-30       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference.

Authors:  Yin Bun Cheung
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  The effect of question order on self-rated general health status in a multilingual survey context.

Authors:  Sunghee Lee; David Grant
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Comparison of the risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio scales for quantifying the unadjusted intervention effect in cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Obioha C Ukoumunne; Andrew B Forbes; John B Carlin; Martin C Gulliford
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

Authors:  J Ware; M Kosinski; S D Keller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Monitoring versus blunting styles of coping with cancer influence the information patients want and need about their disease. Implications for cancer screening and management.

Authors:  S M Miller
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Cancer patient preferences for quality and length of life.

Authors:  Neal J Meropol; Brian L Egleston; Joanne S Buzaglo; Al B Benson; Donald J Cegala; Michael A Diefenbach; Linda Fleisher; Suzanne M Miller; Daniel P Sulmasy; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Using health communication best practices to develop a web-based provider-patient communication aid: the CONNECT study.

Authors:  Linda Fleisher; Joanne Buzaglo; Michael Collins; Jennifer Millard; Suzanne M Miller; Brian L Egleston; Nicholas Solarino; Jonathan Trinastic; Donald J Cegala; Al B Benson; Kevin A Schulman; Kevin P Weinfurt; Daniel Sulmasy; Michael A Diefenbach; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-04-15

10.  Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

Authors:  M Horowitz; N Wilner; W Alvarez
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.312

  10 in total
  23 in total

1.  Mobile Phone Questionnaires for Sexual Risk Data Collection Among Young Women in Soweto, South Africa.

Authors:  Janan J Dietrich; Erica Lazarus; Michele Andrasik; Stefanie Hornschuh; Kennedy Otwombe; Cecilia Morgan; Abby J Isaacs; Yunda Huang; Fatima Laher; James G Kublin; Glenda E Gray
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2018-07

2.  A Machine Learning Approach to Classifying Self-Reported Health Status in a Cohort of Patients With Heart Disease Using Activity Tracker Data.

Authors:  Yiwen Meng; William Speier; Chrisandra Shufelt; Sandy Joung; Jennifer E Van Eyk; C Noel Bairey Merz; Mayra Lopez; Brennan Spiegel; Corey W Arnold
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 5.772

3.  Impact of pain-related temporomandibular disorders on jaw functional limitation, psychological distress and quality of life in postoperative class III East Asian patients.

Authors:  Yi Lin Song; Adrian U-Jin Yap
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-07-04       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 4.  Advances in the Functional Assessment of Patients with Sarcoma.

Authors:  Duncan C Ramsey; Kenneth R Gundle
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Communicating cardiovascular risk to high-risk cancer survivors: a mixed-methods pilot study of a statin risk communication tool.

Authors:  Nirupa J Raghunathan; Emily C Zabor; Nassim Anderson; Kevin Oeffinger; Emily S Tonorezos; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 4.442

6.  Minimum standards of clinical practice for physiotherapists working in critical care settings in the United Kingdom: A modified Delphi technique.

Authors:  Paul Twose; Una Jones; Gareth Cornell
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2018-11-20

7.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Jia Jia Lee; Isha Chaudhry; Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Validating the VR-12 Physical Function Instrument After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with SF-12, PROMIS, and NDI.

Authors:  Nathaniel W Jenkins; James M Parrish; Michael T Nolte; Nadia M Hrynewycz; Thomas S Brundage; Kern Singh
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-11-09

9.  Effect of toe joint stiffness and toe shape on walking biomechanics.

Authors:  Eric C Honert; Gerasimos Bastas; Karl E Zelik
Journal:  Bioinspir Biomim       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 2.956

10.  Prospective evaluation of direct approach with a tablet device as a strategy to enhance survey study participant response rate.

Authors:  Melissa J Parker; Asmaa Manan; Sara Urbanski
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-10-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.