The role of response domain and scale label in the quantitative interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure response options
-
Published:2021-03-04
Issue:7
Volume:30
Page:2097-2108
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Author:
Peasgood Tessa, Chang Jen-Yu, Mir Robina, Mukuria Clara, Powell Philip A.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Uncertainties exist in how respondents interpret response options in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly across different domains and for different scale labels. The current study assessed how respondents quantitatively interpret common response options.
Methods
Members of the general public were recruited to this study via an online panel, stratified by age, gender, and having English as a first language. Participants completed background questions and were randomised to answer questions on one of three domains (i.e. loneliness (negatively phrased), happiness or activities (positively phrased)). Participants were asked to provide quantitative interpretations of response options (e.g. how many times per week is equal to “often”) and to order several common response options (e.g. occasionally, sometimes) on a 0–100 slider scale. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were used to assess whether response options were interpreted consistently across domains and respondent characteristics.
Results
Data from 1377 participants were analysed. There was general consistency in quantifying the number of times over the last 7 days to which each response option referred. Response options were consistently assigned a lower value in the loneliness than happiness and activities domains. Individual differences, such as age and English as a second language, explained some significant variation in responses, but less than domain.
Conclusion
Members of the public quantify common response options in a similar way, but their quantification is not equivalent across domains or every type of respondent. Recommendations for the use of certain scale labels over others in PROM development are provided.
Funder
NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference35 articles.
1. Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167. 2. Dawson, J., Doll, H., Fitzpatrick, R., Jenkinson, C., & Carr, A. J. (2010). The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ, 340, c186. 3. Byrom, B., Doll, H., Muehlhausen, W., Flood, E., Cassedy, C., McDowell, B., Sohn, J., Hogan, K., Belmont, R., Skerritt, B., & McCarthy, M. (2018). Measurement equivalence of patient-reported outcome measure response scale types collected using bring your own device compared to paper and a provisioned device: results of a randomized equivalence trial. Value Health, 21(5), 581–589. 4. Lapin, B. R., Kinzy, T. G., Thompson, N. R., Krishnaney, A., & Katzan, I. L. (2018). Accuracy of linking VR-12 and PROMIS global health scores in clinical practice. Value in health, 21(10), 1226–1233. 5. Gauthier, M., Egan, S., Ryan, A., Khurana, L., Dallabrida, S., & Evans, C. (2018). Do words matter? Patient perspetives on conceptually similar symptoms and impacts frequently utilized in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Value in Health, 21, S109.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|