Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2014

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

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

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
vorige artikel Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data
volgende artikel Use of factor analysis models to evaluate measurement invariance property of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)
Literatuur
1.
Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429. doi:10.​1111/​j.​1524-4733.​2008.​00470.​x.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
deLeeuw, E., Hox, J., & Dillman, D. (2008). Mixed-mode surveys: When and why. In E. deLeeuw, J. Hox, & D. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 299–316). New York: Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group.
4.
deLeeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(2), 233–255.
5.
6.
7.
FDA. (2006). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. (pp. i–32). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.
8.
9.
10.
Couper, M. P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., & Winter, J. (2007). Noncoverage and nonresponse in an internet survey. Social Science Research, 36, 131–148.CrossRef
11.
12.
Dupont, A., Wheeler, J., Herndon, J. E, 2nd, Coan, A., Zafar, S. Y., Hood, L., et al. (2009). Use of tablet personal computers for sensitive patient-reported information. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 7(3), 91–97.PubMed
13.
Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.PubMed
14.
Basch, E., Artz, D., Iasonos, A., Speakman, J., Shannon, K., Lin, K., et al. (2007). Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(3), 264–268. doi:10.​1197/​jamia.​M2177.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Farnell, D. J., Routledge, J., Hannon, R., Logue, J. P., Cowan, R. A., Wylie, J. P., et al. (2010). Efficacy of data capture for patient-reported toxicity following radiotherapy for prostate or cervical cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 46(3), 534–540. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ejca.​2009.​11.​017.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Dillman, A., Gertseva, A., & Mahon-Haft, T. (2005). Achieving usability in establishment surveys through the application of visual design principles. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(2), 183–214.
17.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
18.
19.
Kwak, N., & Radler, B. (2002). A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 18(2), 257–273.
20.
Schulenberg, S. E., & Yutrzenka, B. A. (1999). The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(2), 315–321.CrossRef
21.
Tseng, H. M., Tiplady, B., Macleod, H. A., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 89(Pt 4), 599–610.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Urologic Diseases in America (2012). In Litwin MS, Saigal CS, & et.al. (Eds.), Chapter 3 Prostate Cancer, Tables 3–10 & 3–11 (Vol., pp. 73–96, NIH Publication No. 12-7865 Vol. June 4, 2012). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
23.
24.
Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C., & Snyder, C. (2005). Introduction to outcomes assessment in cancer. In J. Lipscomb, C. Gotay, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcome assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 1–13). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
26.
Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2(3), 217–227.PubMedCrossRef
27.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRef
28.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (1988). The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care, 26(7), 724–735.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Ware, J. E, Jr, Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2004). SF-36 ® health survey: Manual & interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
31.
Ware, J. E, Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., & Brook, R. H. (1998). The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Medical Care, 36(7), 1002–1012.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., Leach, G. E., et al. (1995). Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(2), 129–135.CrossRef
34.
Lubeck, D. P., Litwin, M. S., Henning, J. M., Stier, D. M., Mazonson, P., Fisk, R., et al. (1996). The CaPSURE database: A methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. Urology, 48(5), 773–777.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Rosner, B. (2006). The cross-over design. In Fundamentals of biostatistics, (6th Ed., pp. 699–707). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
36.
37.
Ware, J. E, Jr, & Kosinski, M. (2001). SF-36 ® physical and mental health summary scales: A manual for users of version 1.0 (2nd ed.). Lincoln: RI QualityMetric Incorporated.
38.
Rosner, B. (2006). The intraclass correlation coefficient. In Fundamentals of biostatistics (6th ed., pp. 613–617). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
39.
Rosner, B. (2006). The paired t test. In Fundamentals of biostatistics (6th Ed., pp. 298–302). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
40.
Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(2), 127–137.PubMed
41.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
42.
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
43.
D’Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Schultz, D., Blank, K., Broderick, G. A., et al. (1998). Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(11), 969–974.CrossRef
44.
Cohen, J. (1988). Calculation of effect size. In 2nd (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 24–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
Farivar, S. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(5), 515–523. doi:10.​1586/​14737167.​4.​5.​515.CrossRef
46.
47.
48.
Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., et al. (2006). The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: A summary for clinicians. Supportive Care in Cancer, 14(10), 988–998. doi:10.​1007/​s00520-006-0085-y.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A. (2001). Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 15–22.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Ryan, J. M., Corry, J. R., Attewell, R., & Smithson, M. J. (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 11(1), 19–26.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Measurement equivalence using a mixed-mode approach to administer health-related quality of life instruments
Auteurs
Jeanette M. Broering
Alan Paciorek
Peter R. Carroll
Leslie S. Wilson
Mark S. Litwin
Christine Miaskowski
Publicatiedatum
01-03-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0493-7

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2014

How to measure quality of life in shared-housing arrangements? A comparison of dementia-specific instruments

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) in immunodeficient adults with selective IgA deficiency compared with age- and gender-matched controls and identification of risk factors for poor HRQL

Is a diabetes pay-for-performance program cost-effective under the National Health Insurance in Taiwan?

Mokken scaling of the Chinese version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey

  • Brief Communication

Quality of life in female cancer survivors: is it related to ovarian reserve?

A framework for understanding quality of life in individuals without capacity

  • Open Access