BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a widely used patient-reported outcome instrument measuring health-related quality-of-life and patient satisfaction in breast surgery. Shorter assessment potentially increases patients' willingness to complete scales, but simply offering a shortened version leads to unacceptable loss in measurement precision. The authors aimed to develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) to shorten the BREAST-Q's Satisfaction with Breasts scale while maintaining reliability of measurement. METHODS: The authors created a CAT, which repetitively administered questions from the pool of 16 questions, until prespecified levels of reliability were reached [i.e., standard errors (SE) of 0.32 to 0.55]. In a simulation study, the authors tested the CAT's feasibility for all potential satisfaction scores. In a second study using actual patient data, 5000 breast reconstruction patients who had previously completed the full scale were randomly selected from a large database. Their full-scale satisfaction scores were compared with their CAT-derived scores. RESULTS: In both studies, by applying CAT, the Satisfaction with Breasts scale could be reduced to an average of 10 questions when using the minimum level of measurement precision for individual-patient measurement (SE, 0.32), compared with four questions when using the minimum precision level for group-based research (SE, 0.55). Score estimates were highly correlated between the CAT assessment and the full scale (0.91 to 0.98 in the simulation study, and 0.89 to 0.98 in the patient data study). CONCLUSIONS: Applying computerized adaptive testing to the BREAST-Q's Satisfaction with Breasts scale facilitates reliable assessment, with 38 to 75 percent fewer questions than the full version. The novel BREAST-Q CAT version may decrease response burden and help overcome barriers to implementation in routine care.
BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a widely used patient-reported outcome instrument measuring health-related quality-of-life and patient satisfaction in breast surgery. Shorter assessment potentially increases patients' willingness to complete scales, but simply offering a shortened version leads to unacceptable loss in measurement precision. The authors aimed to develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) to shorten the BREAST-Q's Satisfaction with Breasts scale while maintaining reliability of measurement. METHODS: The authors created a CAT, which repetitively administered questions from the pool of 16 questions, until prespecified levels of reliability were reached [i.e., standard errors (SE) of 0.32 to 0.55]. In a simulation study, the authors tested the CAT's feasibility for all potential satisfaction scores. In a second study using actual patient data, 5000 breast reconstruction patients who had previously completed the full scale were randomly selected from a large database. Their full-scale satisfaction scores were compared with their CAT-derived scores. RESULTS: In both studies, by applying CAT, the Satisfaction with Breasts scale could be reduced to an average of 10 questions when using the minimum level of measurement precision for individual-patient measurement (SE, 0.32), compared with four questions when using the minimum precision level for group-based research (SE, 0.55). Score estimates were highly correlated between the CAT assessment and the full scale (0.91 to 0.98 in the simulation study, and 0.89 to 0.98 in the patient data study). CONCLUSIONS: Applying computerized adaptive testing to the BREAST-Q's Satisfaction with Breasts scale facilitates reliable assessment, with 38 to 75 percent fewer questions than the full version. The novel BREAST-Q CAT version may decrease response burden and help overcome barriers to implementation in routine care.
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Adeyiza O Momoh; Ji Qi; Jennifer B Hamill; Jessica Billig; Hyungjin M Kim; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Amylou C Dueck; Howard I Scher; Mark G Kris; Clifford Hudis; Deborah Schrag Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Wee Loon Ong; Maartje G Schouwenburg; Annelotte C M van Bommel; Caleb Stowell; Kim H Allison; Karen E Benn; John P Browne; Rodney D Cooter; Geoff P Delaney; Francois P Duhoux; Patricia A Ganz; Patricia Hancock; Reshma Jagsi; Felicia M Knaul; Anne M Knip; Linetta B Koppert; Henry M Kuerer; Sarah McLaughin; Marc A M Mureau; Ann H Partridge; Dereesa Purtell Reid; Lisa Sheeran; Thomas J Smith; Mark J Stoutjesdijk; Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Yvonne Wengström; Cheng-Har Yip; Christobel Saunders Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Sippy Olarsch; Richard Moed Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983