BACKGROUND: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey enables patients to report their experiences with outpatient medical offices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the factor structure and reliability of the CAHPS Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) Adult Visit Survey. DATA SOURCE: Data from 21,318 patients receiving care in 450 clinical practice sites collected from March 2010 to December 2010 were analyzed from the CG-CAHPS Database. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual level and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine CAHPS survey responses at the patient and practice site levels. We also estimated internal consistency reliability and practice site level reliability. Correlations among multi-item composites and correlations between the composites and 2 global rating items were examined. MEASURES: Scores on CG-CAHPS composites assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, Courteous/Helpful Staff, and 2 global ratings of whether one would Recommend their Doctor, and an Overall Doctor Rating. RESULTS: Analyses provide support for the hypothesized 3-factor model assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, and Courteous/Helpful Staff. In addition, the internal consistency reliabilities were ≥ 0.77 and practice site level reliabilities for sites with >4 clinicians were ≥ 0.75. All composites were positively and significantly correlated with the 2 global rating items, with Doctor Communication having the strongest relationship with the global ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The CG-CAHPS Adult Visit Survey has acceptable psychometric properties at the individual level and practice site level. The analyses suggest that the survey items are measuring their intended concepts and yield reliable information.
BACKGROUND: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey enables patients to report their experiences with outpatient medical offices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the factor structure and reliability of the CAHPS Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) Adult Visit Survey. DATA SOURCE: Data from 21,318 patients receiving care in 450 clinical practice sites collected from March 2010 to December 2010 were analyzed from the CG-CAHPS Database. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual level and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine CAHPS survey responses at the patient and practice site levels. We also estimated internal consistency reliability and practice site level reliability. Correlations among multi-item composites and correlations between the composites and 2 global rating items were examined. MEASURES: Scores on CG-CAHPS composites assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, Courteous/Helpful Staff, and 2 global ratings of whether one would Recommend their Doctor, and an Overall Doctor Rating. RESULTS: Analyses provide support for the hypothesized 3-factor model assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, and Courteous/Helpful Staff. In addition, the internal consistency reliabilities were ≥ 0.77 and practice site level reliabilities for sites with >4 clinicians were ≥ 0.75. All composites were positively and significantly correlated with the 2 global rating items, with Doctor Communication having the strongest relationship with the global ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The CG-CAHPS Adult Visit Survey has acceptable psychometric properties at the individual level and practice site level. The analyses suggest that the survey items are measuring their intended concepts and yield reliable information.
Authors: R D Hays; J A Shaul; V S Williams; J S Lubalin; L D Harris-Kojetin; S F Sweeny; P D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: A James O'Malley; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays; Kimberly A Hepner; San Keller; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Eugene C Nelson; Mary A Gentry; Kathryn H Mook; Karen L Spritzer; John H Higgins; Ron D Hays Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Robert M Cronin; Manshu Yang; Jane S Hankins; Jeannie Byrd; Brandi M Pernell; Adetola Kassim; Patricia Adams-Graves; Alexis A Thompson; Karen Kalinyak; Michael DeBaun; Marsha Treadwell Journal: Hematology Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.269
Authors: Anthony Jerant; Joshua J Fenton; Richard L Kravitz; Daniel J Tancredi; Elizabeth Magnan; Klea D Bertakis; Peter Franks Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Stefan G Kertesz; David E Pollio; Richard N Jones; Jocelyn Steward; Erin J Stringfellow; Adam J Gordon; Nancy K Johnson; Theresa A Kim; Shanette G Daigle; Erika L Austin; Alexander S Young; Joya G Chrystal; Lori L Davis; David L Roth; Cheryl L Holt Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ron D Hays; Laura J Berman; Michael H Kanter; Mildred Hugh; Rachel R Oglesby; Chong Y Kim; Mike Cui; Julie Brown Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Anthony Jerant; Richard L Kravitz; Klea D Bertakis; Daniel J Tancredi; Elizabeth M Magnan; Peter Franks Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sarah Hudson Scholle; Oanh Vuong; Lin Ding; Stephanie Fry; Patricia Gallagher; Julie A Brown; Ron D Hays; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983