Literature DB >> 22851003

Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): a randomised crossover trial in cancer patients.

Laura Ashley1, Ada Keding, Julia Brown, Galina Velikova, Penny Wright.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) assesses everyday problems experienced by cancer patients, including difficulties with self-care, work and relationships. Early development and psychometric evaluation studies have validated the SDI-21 for computer administration. However, several recent studies have administered the SDI-21 on paper. We sought to test the score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the SDI-21.
METHODS: A randomised two-arm crossover trial in a sample of cancer patients with varied diagnoses. Patients completed electronic (via the internet) and paper versions of the SDI-21, with half randomly assigned to complete the electronic version first (n = 51) and half the paper version first (n = 60). Patients were asked to complete both versions at home, within 2 weeks. Analyses were performed for the SDI-21 summary score and three subscales.
RESULTS: Score distributions and internal reliabilities for the paper and electronic versions were highly similar. There were no significant differences between mean summary or subscale scores for the two administration modes. All mean score differences (all <0.25 of a scale point) were well below the SDI-21's established minimally important differences, and all 95 % confidence intervals were narrow and included zero. Intraclass correlations between paper and electronic scores were uniformly high and significant (all ≥0.85) and above the standard acceptable level of reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: Paper and electronic versions of the SDI-21 can be considered equivalent and used interchangeably. This is important because, despite the growth of electronic formats, paper versions are currently still necessary to ensure inclusive use of the SDI-21 with representative samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22851003     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0242-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  16 in total

1.  Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice.

Authors:  E P Wright; M Kiely; C Johnston; A B Smith; A Cull; P J Selby
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost.

Authors:  Corey Greenlaw; Sharon Brown-Welty
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2009-07-15

3.  Cancer support group participation in the United Kingdom: a national survey.

Authors:  Clare Stevinson; Anne Lydon; Ziv Amir
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  The Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI): development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff.

Authors:  Penny Wright; Adam B Smith; Ada Keding; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Translation of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) into three South Asian languages and preliminary evaluation of SDI-21(Urdu).

Authors:  Naheed Hanif; Nimarta Dharni; Adam Smith; Sangeeta Chattoo; Galina Velikova; Chris Bradley; Dan Stark; Penny Wright
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Chad J Gwaltney; Alan L Shields; Saul Shiffman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: estimates for 2008.

Authors:  J Maddams; D Brewster; A Gavin; J Steward; J Elliott; M Utley; H Møller
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment.

Authors:  Andrew J Cook; David A Roberts; Michael D Henderson; Lisa C Van Winkle; Dania C Chastain; Robin J Hamill-Ruth
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI).

Authors:  Penny Wright; Laura Marshall; Adam B Smith; Galina Velikova; Peter Selby
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial wellbeing in cancer patients.

Authors:  Alice E Simon; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 9.162

View more
  3 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

Review 2.  Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013.

Authors:  Willie Muehlhausen; Helen Doll; Nuz Quadri; Bethany Fordham; Paul O'Donohoe; Nijda Dogar; Diane J Wild
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.186

3.  eRAPID electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice: a pilot study protocol in pelvic radiotherapy.

Authors:  Patricia Holch; Simon Pini; Ann M Henry; Susan Davidson; Jacki Routledge; Julia Brown; Kate Absolom; Alexandra Gilbert; Kevin Franks; Claire Hulme; Carolyn Morris; Galina Velikova
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2018-06-05
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.