The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-22) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
CG contributed to study concept and design, acquisition of qualitative data, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript. JN, JB and DL contributed to study design, interpretation of data and preparation of manuscript. SC contributed to study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript.
When developing new measuring instruments or deciding upon one for research, consideration of the ‘best’ method of administration for the target population should be made. Current evidence is inconsistent in differentiating superiority of any one method in terms of quantity and quality of response. We trialed a novel mixed methods approach in early scale development to determine the best administration method for a new patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers (the PU-QOL).
Cognitive interviews were undertaken with 35 people with pressure ulcers to determine appropriateness of a self-completed version of the PU-QOL instrument. Quantitative analysis, including Rasch analysis, was carried out on PU-QOL data from 70 patients with pressure ulcers, randomised to self-completed or interview-administered groups, to examine data quality and differential item functioning (DIF).
Cognitive interviews identified issues with PU-QOL self-completion. Quantitative analysis supported these findings with a large proportion of self-completed PU-QOLs returned with missing data. DIF analysis indicated administration methods did not impact the way patients from community care settings responded, supporting the equivalence of both administration versions.
Obtaining the best possible health outcomes data requires use of appropriate methods to ensure high quality data with minimal bias. Mixed methods, with the inclusion of Rasch, provided valuable evidence to support selection of the ‘best’ administration method for people with PUs during early PRO instrument development. We consider our approach to be generic and widely applicable to other elderly or chronically ill populations or suitable for use in limited samples where recruitment to large field tests is often difficult.
Greenfield S, Nelson E: Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings. Med Care. 1992, 20: S23-41.
US Department of Health & Human Services FDA: Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm193282.pdf. 2009. MD, US Department of Health & Human Support Food & Drug Administration
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust: Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002, 11: 193-205. 10.1023/A:1015291021312. CrossRef
Puhan M, Ahuja A, Van Natta M, Ackatz L, Meinert C: Interviewer versus self-administered health-related quality of life questionnaires-Does it matter?. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011, doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-30
Bowling A: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005, 27: 281-291. 10.1093/pubmed/fdi031. CrossRef
Newton R, Prensky D, Schuessler K: Form effect in the measurement of feeling states. Soc Sci Res. 1982, 11: 301-17. 10.1016/0049-089X(82)90001-1. CrossRef
Sikorski A, Given C, Given B, Jeon A, You M: Differential symptom reporting by mode of administration of the assessment: automated voice response system versus a live telephone interview. Med Care. 2009, 47: 866-874. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a31d00. CrossRef
Rasch G: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1960, Chicago: University of Chicago
Linacre J: Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994, 7: 328-
Coleman S, Gorecki C, Nelson E, Closs J, Defloor T, Halfens R, et al: Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.11.019,
NICE: CG7 Pressure ulcer prevention. web . 2003. from the NICE, UK website
Andrich D: Rasch models for measurement. 1988, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications CrossRef
Hagquist C, Andrich D: Is the Sense of Coherence-instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch modelling. Pers Individ Differ. 2004, 36: 955-968. 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00164-8. CrossRef
Gorecki C, Brown J, Cano S, Lamping D, Briggs M, Coleman S, et al: Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013, 11: 95-10.1186/1477-7525-11-95. http://www.hqlo.com/content/11/1/95, CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Andrich D: Distinctions between assumptions and requirements in measurements in the social sciences. Mathematical and Theoretical Systems: Vol 4. Edited by: Keats JA, Taft R, Heath RA, Lovibond SH. 1989, North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 7-16.
Cano S, Barrett L, Zajicek J, Hobart J: Beyond the reach of traditional analyses: using Rasch to evaluate the DASH in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2011, 17: 214-222. 10.1177/1352458510385269. CrossRef
Andrich D: An elaboration of Guttman scaling with Rasch models for measurement. Sociological Methodology. Edited by: Brandon-Tuma N. 1985, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 33-80.
Zumbo BD: A handbook on the theory and methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. 1999, Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense
Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G: RUMM 2030. 4.0 for windows (upgrade 4600.0109. 2010, Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory, PTY LTD
Bonferroni C: Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilit’a. Pubblicazionidel R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economichee Commerciali di Firenze. . 2011, 8: 3-62.
Miller R: Simultaneous statistical inference. 1981, Verlag: Springer, 2 CrossRef
Fletcher A, Bulpitt C: Quality of life and hypertensive drugs in the elderly. Ageing Clin Exp Res. 1992, 4: 115-123. 10.1007/BF03324077. CrossRef
Hobart J, Cano S: Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Techno Assess. 2009, 13: 1-177.
- Using mixed methods to select optimal mode of administration for a patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers
Julia M Brown
Donna L Lamping
Stefan J Cano
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II