Literature DB >> 21954102

A comparison of data quality and practicality of online versus postal questionnaires in a sample of testicular cancer survivors.

Allan Ben Smith1, Madeleine King, Phyllis Butow, Ian Olver.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare data quality from online and postal questionnaires and to evaluate the practicality of these different questionnaire modes in a cancer sample.
METHODS: Participants in a study investigating the psychosocial sequelae of testicular cancer could choose to complete a postal or online version of the study questionnaire. Data quality was evaluated by assessing sources of nonobservational errors such as participant nonresponse, item nonresponse and sampling bias. Time taken and number of reminders required for questionnaire return were used as indicators of practicality.
RESULTS: Participant nonresponse was significantly higher among participants who chose the postal questionnaire. The proportion of questionnaires with missing items and the mean number of missing items did not differ significantly by mode. A significantly larger proportion of tertiary-educated participants and managers/professionals completed the online questionnaire. There were no significant differences in age, relationship status, employment status, country of birth or language spoken by completion mode. Compared with postal questionnaires, online questionnaires were returned significantly more quickly and required significantly fewer reminders.
CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that online questionnaire completion can be offered in a cancer sample without compromising data quality. In fact, data quality from online questionnaires may be superior due to lower rates of participant nonresponse. Investigators should be aware of potential sampling bias created by more highly educated participants and managers/professionals choosing to complete online questionnaires. Besides this issue, online questionnaires offer an efficient method for collecting high-quality data, with faster return and fewer reminders.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21954102     DOI: 10.1002/pon.2052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  12 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer.

Authors:  Teresa L Hagan; Sarah M Belcher; Heidi S Donovan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  The prevalence, severity, and correlates of psychological distress and impaired health-related quality of life following treatment for testicular cancer: a survivorship study.

Authors:  Allan Ben Smith; Phyllis Butow; Ian Olver; Tim Luckett; Peter Grimison; Guy C Toner; Martin R Stockler; Elizabeth Hovey; John Stubbs; Sandra Turner; George Hruby; Howard Gurney; Mahmood Alam; Keith Cox; Madeleine T King
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 4.442

4.  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

5.  Internal consistency and measurement equivalence of the cannabis screening questions on the paper-and-pencil face-to-face ASSIST versus the online instrument.

Authors:  Yasser Khazaal; Anne Chatton; Grégoire Monney; Audrey Nallet; Riaz Khan; Daniele Zullino; Jean-François Etter
Journal:  Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy       Date:  2015-03-08

6.  Response rates for patient-reported outcomes using web-based versus paper questionnaires: comparison of two invitational methods in older colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Nicole Je Horevoorts; Pauline Aj Vissers; Floortje Mols; Melissa Sy Thong; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Mode differences in a mixed-mode health interview survey among adults.

Authors:  Jens Hoebel; Elena von der Lippe; Cornelia Lange; Thomas Ziese
Journal:  Arch Public Health       Date:  2014-12-22

8.  Demographic and Indication-Specific Characteristics Have Limited Association With Social Network Engagement: Evidence From 24,954 Members of Four Health Care Support Groups.

Authors:  Trevor van Mierlo; Xinlong Li; Douglas Hyatt; Andrew T Ching
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Mode Equivalence of Health Indicators Between Data Collection Modes and Mixed-Mode Survey Designs in Population-Based Health Interview Surveys for Children and Adolescents: Methodological Study.

Authors:  Elvira Mauz; Robert Hoffmann; Robin Houben; Laura Krause; Panagiotis Kamtsiuris; Antje Gößwald
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  The feasibility of web surveys for obtaining patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors: a randomized experiment comparing survey modes and brochure enclosures.

Authors:  Morgan M Millar; Joanne W Elena; Lisa Gallicchio; Sandra L Edwards; Marjorie E Carter; Kimberly A Herget; Carol Sweeney
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.