Dataset Information

The role of response domain and scale label in the quantitative interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure response options.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Uncertainties exist in how respondents interpret response options in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly across different domains and for different scale labels. The current study assessed how respondents quantitatively interpret common response options.

Methods

Members of the general public were recruited to this study via an online panel, stratified by age, gender, and having English as a first language. Participants completed background questions and were randomised to answer questions on one of three domains (i.e. loneliness (negatively phrased), happiness or activities (positively phrased)). Participants were asked to provide quantitative interpretations of response options (e.g. how many times per week is equal to "often") and to order several common response options (e.g. occasionally, sometimes) on a 0-100 slider scale. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were used to assess whether response options were interpreted consistently across domains and respondent characteristics.

Results

Data from 1377 participants were analysed. There was general consistency in quantifying the number of times over the last 7 days to which each response option referred. Response options were consistently assigned a lower value in the loneliness than happiness and activities domains. Individual differences, such as age and English as a second language, explained some significant variation in responses, but less than domain.

Conclusion

Members of the public quantify common response options in a similar way, but their quantification is not equivalent across domains or every type of respondent. Recommendations for the use of certain scale labels over others in PROM development are provided.

SUBMITTER: Peasgood T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8233274 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care.AimTo validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change.DesignConcurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change).Setting/participantsIn all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany.ResultsWe confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good.ConclusionThe Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.