Literature DB >> 23943258

Measurement equivalence using a mixed-mode approach to administer health-related quality of life instruments.

Jeanette M Broering1, Alan Paciorek, Peter R Carroll, Leslie S Wilson, Mark S Litwin, Christine Miaskowski.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of mode, order of administration, and the interaction of mode and order on health-related quality of life scales when self-administered by mixed mode (paper-mode and web-mode) for measurement equivalence.
METHODS: Health-related quality of life data was analyzed from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI). A randomized crossover design assigned participants to two groups with a preferred 2-5-day washout period. Cognitive debriefing evaluated participants' mode preference.
RESULTS: Of the 245 men enrolled, 85 % completed both modes. The majority were White (97 %), college educated (66 %), reported an annual income >$75,000 (46 %), and a median age of 69 years. Intraclass correlation coefficients were high for each item on both instruments (r = .54-.97). Exact percentage agreement for yes/no items was high (≥.88). For the SF-36, significant differences were observed for order of administration (physical component and physical function scores) and for the interaction between mode and order (mental component, role emotional, social function, vitality, and mental health scores). For the UCLA-PCI, the largest difference was 12.8 points lower for sexual bother for order of administration by web-mode first (p = .03). Seventy percent preferred the web-mode, 21 % had no preference, and 9 % preferred the paper-mode.
CONCLUSION: Web-mode and paper-mode administrations of the SF-36 and UCLA-PCI are equivalent in men with prostate cancer, implying that mixed-mode survey administration is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23943258     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0493-7

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


  31 in total

1.  The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: implications for measures of negative affect.

Authors:  S E Schulenberg; B A Yutrzenka
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  1999-05

Review 2.  Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality.

Authors:  Ann Bowling
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2005-05-03       Impact factor: 2.341

Review 3.  The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; Rick Berzon; Amylou Dueck; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Moinpour; Mirjam Sprangers; Carol Ferrans; David Cella
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population.

Authors:  A L Stewart; R D Hays; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior.

Authors:  D V Cicchetti; S A Sparrow
Journal:  Am J Ment Defic       Date:  1981-09

6.  Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; David Artz; Alexia Iasonos; John Speakman; Kevin Shannon; Kai Lin; Charmaine Pun; Henry Yong; Paul Fearn; Allison Barz; Howard I Scher; Mary McCabe; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor.

Authors:  D P Lubeck; M S Litwin; J M Henning; D M Stier; P Mazonson; R Fisk; P R Carroll
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the Medical Outcomes Trust framework.

Authors:  Joseph Lipscomb; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn C Gotay
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  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

10.  The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure.

Authors:  M S Litwin; R D Hays; A Fink; P A Ganz; B Leake; R H Brook
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Quality of Life Measurements: Any Value for Clinical Practice?

Authors:  Matthias Büttner; Veit Zebralla; Andreas Dietz; Susanne Singer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2017-05

2.  Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments.

Authors:  Stefanie Schmidt; Olatz Garin; Yolanda Pardo; José M Valderas; Jordi Alonso; Pablo Rebollo; Luis Rajmil; Carlos Garcia-Forero; Montse Ferrer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-04-19       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home.

Authors:  L M Wintner; J M Giesinger; A Zabernigg; G Rumpold; M Sztankay; A S Oberguggenberger; E M Gamper; B Holzner
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 2.796

4.  The use of self-report questions to examine the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems: a test-retest study.

Authors:  Tiffany K Gill; Graeme R Tucker; Jodie C Avery; E Michael Shanahan; Hylton B Menz; Anne W Taylor; Robert J Adams; Catherine L Hill
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  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

Review 6.  A meta-analytic review of measurement equivalence study findings of the SF-36® and SF-12® Health Surveys across electronic modes compared to paper administration.

Authors:  Michelle K White; Stephen M Maher; Avery A Rizio; Jakob B Bjorner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Measurement agreement of the self-administered questionnaire of the Belgian Health Interview Survey: Paper-and-pencil versus web-based mode.

Authors:  Elise Braekman; Finaba Berete; Rana Charafeddine; Stefaan Demarest; Sabine Drieskens; Lydia Gisle; Geert Molenberghs; Jean Tafforeau; Johan Van der Heyden; Guido Van Hal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Measurement Equivalence of "Touch-Screen" versus "Paper-Based" Assessments of OHRQoL: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Maznurfarhatunnisak Anowar; Colman McGrath; Roslan Saub
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2020-05-29

9.  Basic issues concerning health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Roman Sosnowski; Marta Kulpa; Urszula Ziętalewicz; Jan Karol Wolski; Robert Nowakowski; Robert Bakuła; Tomasz Demkow
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-04-13

10.  The Swedish RAND-36 Health Survey - reliability and responsiveness assessed in patient populations using Svensson's method for paired ordinal data.

Authors:  Lotti Orwelius; Mats Nilsson; Evalill Nilsson; Marika Wenemark; Ulla Walfridsson; Mats Lundström; Charles Taft; Bo Palaszewski; Margareta Kristenson
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2018-02-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.