Literature DB >> 27071685

The meaning of vaguely quantified frequency response options on a quality of life scale depends on respondents' medical status and age.

Stefan Schneider1, Arthur A Stone2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Self-report items in quality of life (QoL) scales commonly use vague quantifiers like "sometimes" or "often" to measure the frequency of health-related experiences. This study examined whether the meaning of such vaguely quantified response options differs depending on people's medical status and age, which may undermine the validity of QoL group comparisons.
METHODS: Respondents (n = 600) rated the frequency of positive and negative QoL experiences using vague quantifiers (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) and provided open-ended numeric frequency counts for the same items. Negative binomial regression analyses examined whether the numeric frequencies associated with each vague quantifier differed between medical status (no vs. one or more medical conditions) and age (18-40 vs. 60+ years) groups.
RESULTS: Compared to respondents without a chronic condition, those with a medical condition assigned a higher numeric frequency to the same vague quantifiers for negative QoL experiences; this effect was not evident for positive QoL experiences. Older respondents' numeric frequencies were more extreme (i.e., lower at the low end and somewhat higher at the high end of the response range) than those of younger respondents. After adjusting for these effects, differences in QoL became somewhat more pronounced between medical status groups, but not between age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that people with different medical backgrounds and age do not interpret vague frequency quantifiers on a QoL scale in the same way. Open-ended numeric frequency reports may be useful to detect and potentially correct for differences in the meaning of vague quantifiers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Age; Chronic illness; Frequency ratings; Quality of life; Self-report; Vague quantifiers

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27071685      PMCID: PMC5345903          DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1293-7

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


  39 in total

1.  Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: a convergent validity study.

Authors:  Mechteld R M Visser; Frans J Oort; Mirjam A G Sprangers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States.

Authors:  Arthur A Stone; Joseph E Schwartz; Joan E Broderick; Angus Deaton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Six patient-reported outcome measurement information system short form measures have negligible age- or diagnosis-related differential item functioning in individuals with disabilities.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Alyssa M Bamer; Dagmar Amtmann; Ivan R Molton; Mark P Jensen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-03-02       Impact factor: 3.966

4.  Distinguishing between frequency and intensity of health-related symptoms from diary assessments.

Authors:  Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 3.006

5.  Discrepancies between self-reported and observed physical function in the elderly: the influence of response shift and other factors.

Authors:  L H Daltroy; M G Larson; H M Eaton; C B Phillips; M H Liang
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Emotional experience in everyday life across the adult life span.

Authors:  L L Carstensen; M Pasupathi; U Mayr; J R Nesselroade
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2000-10

7.  Compared to what? A joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life.

Authors:  Heather P Lacey; George Loewenstein; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-02-04       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research.

Authors:  Valerie S Harder; Elizabeth A Stuart; James C Anthony
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2010-09

9.  Are they really that happy? Exploring scale recalibration in estimates of well-being.

Authors:  Heather P Lacey; Angela Fagerlin; George Loewenstein; Dylan M Smith; Jason Riis; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Validity of single item responses to short message service texts to monitor depression: an mHealth sub-study of the UK ACUDep trial.

Authors:  Ada Keding; Jan R Böhnke; Tim J Croudace; Stewart J Richmond; Hugh MacPherson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  2 in total

1.  Content generation for patient-reported outcome measures for retinal degeneration therapeutic trials.

Authors:  Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Lilia T Popova; Erin P Santos; Gina Yu; Hanan Y Rakine; Julie M Rosenthal; Joshua R Ehrlich; David C Musch; K Thiran Jayasundera
Journal:  Ophthalmic Genet       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 1.803

2.  Vague quantifiers demonstrate little susceptibility to frame of reference effects.

Authors:  Marta Walentynowicz; Stefan Schneider; Doerte U Junghaenel; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Appl Res Qual Life       Date:  2021-01-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.