Response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data: a qualitative study

Author:

Grindheim ØyvindORCID,McAleavey AndrewORCID,Iversen Valentina,Moltu ChristianORCID,Tømmervik Kristin,Govasmark Hege,Brattland HeidiORCID

Abstract

Abstract Objective To identify factors that influence response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data. Secondly, due to the lack of integrative and explanatory models in this area, to develop a model of patients’ response processes that can guide what to look for when considering validity evidence and interpreting scores on individual items. Methods Participants (n = 13) were recruited from a specialized substance use disorder treatment clinic and interviewed while responding to items from a clinical feedback system implemented for routine outcome monitoring in that setting. The interview approach was based on cognitive interviewing. Data collection and analysis were inspired by a grounded theory approach. Results We identified several variables that influenced the participants’ response processes. The variables were organized into five categories: context-related variables; item-related variables; response base variables; reasoning strategies; and response selection strategies. We also found that the participants’ responses for many items were affected by different aspects of the response process in ways that are relevant to interpretation but not necessarily discernible from the numerical scores alone, and we developed response categories to capture this. Conclusion The findings suggest that patients providing quantitative self-report data encounter conditions in the response process that challenge and influence their ability to convey meaning and accuracy. This results in responses that for many of the items reflect messages important for interpretation and follow-up, even if it does not appear from the numerical scores alone. The proposed model may be a useful tool when developing items, assessing validity, and interpreting responses.

Funder

Fakultet for medisin og helsevitenskap, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet

NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference28 articles.

1. Hawkins, M., Elsworth, G. R., & Osborne, R. H. (2018). Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Building an argument for validity. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1695–1710.

2. Zumbo, B. D., & Chan, E. K. H. (2014). Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07794-9

3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Americal Educational Research Association.

4. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2017). Response processes in the context of validity: Setting the stage. In B. D. Zumbo & A. M. Hubley (Eds.), Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research (pp. 1–12). Springer International Publishing.

5. De Jong, K., Conijin, J. M., Gallagher, R. A. V., Reshetnikova, A. S., Heij, M., & Lutz, M. C. (2021). Using progress feedback to improve outcomes and reduce drop-out, treatment duration, and deterioration: A multilevel meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 102002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102002

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3