Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2012

Frequency vs. intensity: which should be used as anchors for self-report instruments?

Zeitschrift:
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Julia Krabbe, Thomas Forkmann
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-10-107) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

JK contributed to conception and design of the study, coordinated the data acquisition, conducted the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. TF has been involved in drafting and revising the manuscript, and coordinated the study and data acquisition. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

The aim of the present study was to investigate the usability of verbal rating scale anchors in patients suffering from a depressive episode and whether differences between frequency or intensity scales could be determined. Frequency and intensity terms were evaluated concerning their interindividual congruency, intraindividual stability across time, and distinguishability of adjacent terms.

Methods

In a longitudinal design, 44 patients (age M=39.1, SD=15.2, 68.2% female) with a depressive disorder filled out several established questionnaires (e.g. BDI or SCL-90) and questionnaires containing frequency and intensity terms which should be indicated by the percentage of time or intensity that is reflected by each term at two different measuring times within one week. Data analysis contained t-tests for paired samples and effect sizes d according to Cohen.

Results

Intensity terms showed weaker intraindividual stability across time as compared to frequency terms. Participants were able to reliably distinguish four frequency and intensity terms at both measuring times. Overall congruency between patients was larger for intensity terms in comparison to frequency terms.

Conclusions

The present results indicate that both frequency and intensity terms can be applied as verbal anchors for clinical self-report scales. However, if longitudinal assessment is intended, our results indicate that frequency terms should be used as they showed slightly greater stability across time. Generally, the present study suggests that no more than four different verbal anchors should be used together in rating scales as especially older patients and those with low lexical experience would not be able to reasonably differentiate more than these.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1:Data of frequency terms on single item level for all split groups.(XLS 44 KB)
12955_2012_1017_MOESM1_ESM.xls
Additional file 2:Data of intensity terms on single item level for all split groups.(XLS 50 KB)
12955_2012_1017_MOESM2_ESM.xls
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12955_2012_1017_MOESM3_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 2
12955_2012_1017_MOESM4_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 3
12955_2012_1017_MOESM5_ESM.jpeg
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe