Dataset Information

The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A critical component that influences the measurement properties of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument is the rating scale. Yet, there is a lack of general consensus regarding optimal rating scale format, including aspects of question structure, the number and the labels of response categories. This study aims to explore the characteristics of rating scales that function well and those that do not, and thereby develop guidelines for formulating rating scales.

Methods

Seventeen existing PROs designed to measure vision-related quality of life dimensions were mailed for self-administration, in sets of 10, to patients who were on a waiting list for cataract extraction. These PROs included questions with ratings of difficulty, frequency, severity, and global ratings. Using Rasch analysis, performance of rating scales were assessed by examining hierarchical ordering (indicating categories are distinct from each other and follow a logical transition from lower to higher value), evenness (indicating relative utilization of categories), and range (indicating coverage of the attribute by the rating scale).

Results

The rating scales with complicated question format, a large number of response categories, or unlabelled categories, tended to be dysfunctional. Rating scales with five or fewer response categories tended to be functional. Most of the rating scales measuring difficulty performed well. The rating scales measuring frequency and severity demonstrated hierarchical ordering but the categories lacked even utilization.

Conclusion

Developers of PRO instruments should use a simple question format, fewer (four to five) and labelled response categories.

SUBMITTER: Khadka J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3503574 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes.

Khadka Jyoti J Gothwal Vijaya K VK McAlinden Colm C Lamoureux Ecosse L EL Pesudovs Konrad K

Health and quality of life outcomes 20120713

<h4>Background</h4>A critical component that influences the measurement properties of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument is the rating scale. Yet, there is a lack of general consensus regarding optimal rating scale format, including aspects of question structure, the number and the labels of response categories. This study aims to explore the characteristics of rating scales that function well and those that do not, and thereby develop guidelines for formulating rating scales.<h4>Method ...[more]

PMID: 22794788

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnambiguous interpretation of ordered rating scale response categories requires distinct meanings of category labels. Also, summation of item responses into total scores assumes equal intervals between categories. While studies have identified problems with rating scale response category functioning there is a paucity of empirical studies regarding how respondents interpret response categories. We investigated the interpretation of commonly used rating scale response categories and attempted to identify distinct and roughly equally spaced response categories for patient-reported rating scales in Parkinson's disease (PD) and age-matched control subjects.MethodsTwenty-one rating scale response categories representing frequency, intensity and level of agreement were presented in random order to 51 people with PD (36 men; mean age, 66 years) and 36 age-matched controls (14 men; mean age, 66). Respondents indicated their interpretation of each category on 100-mm visual analog scales (VAS) anchored by Never--Always, Not at all--Extremely, and Totally disagree--Completely agree. VAS values were compared between groups, and response categories with mean values and non-overlapping 95% CIs corresponding to equally spaced locations on the VAS line were sought to identify the best options for three-, four-, five-, and six-category scales.ResultsVAS values did not differ between the PD and control samples (P = 0.286) or according to educational level (P = 0.220), age (P = 0.220), self-reported physical functioning (P = 0.501) and mental health (P = 0.238), or (for the PD sample) PD duration (P = 0.213) or presence of dyskinesias (P = 0.212). Attempts to identify roughly equally spaced response categories for three-, four-, five-, and six-category scales were unsuccessful, as the 95% CIs of one or several of the identified response categories failed to include the criterion values for equal distances.ConclusionsThis study offers an evidence base for selecting more interpretable patient-reported rating scale response categories. However, problems associated with raw rating scale data, primarily related to their ordinal structure also became apparent. This argues for the application of methodologies such as Rasch measurement. Rating scale response categories need to be treated with rigour in the construction and analysis of rating scales.

Project description:Importance:Aesthetic eye treatments can dramatically change a person's appearance, but outcomes are rarely measured from the patient perspective. The patient perspective could be measured using an eye-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Objective:To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of FACE-Q scales and an adverse effect checklist designed to measure outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants:Pretreatment and posttreatment patients 18 years and older who had undergone facial aesthetic procedures were recruited from plastic surgery clinics in United States and Canada and completed FACE-Q scales between June 6, 2010, and July 14, 2014. We used Rasch Measurement Theory, a modern psychometric approach, to refine the scales and to examine psychometric properties. Main Outcomes and Measures:The FACE-Q Eye Module, which has 4 scales that measure appearance of the eyes, upper and lower eyelids, and eyelashes. Scale scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The module also includes a checklist measuring postblepharoplasty adverse effects. Results:Overall, 233 patients (81% response rate) 18 years and older participated. Adverse effects included being bothered by eyelid scars, dry eyes, and eye irritation. In Rasch Measurement Theory analysis, each scale's items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Person Separation Index and Cronbach ? were greater than or equal to 0.83. Higher scores on the eye scales correlated with fewer adverse effects (range, -0.26 to -0.36). In the pretreatment group, older age correlated with lower scores (range, -0.42 to -0.51) on the scales measure appearance of the eyes and upper and lower eyelids. Compared with the pretreatment group, posttreatment participants reported significantly better scores on the scales measuring appearance of eyes overall, as well as upper and lower eyelids. Conclusions and Relevance:The FACE-Q Eye Module can be used in clinical practice, research and quality improvement to collect evidence-based outcomes data. Level of Evidence:NA.

Dataset Information

The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets