Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey responses across Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper modes of administration.

Methods

Postoperative colorectal cancer patients with home Web/e-mail and phone were randomly assigned to one of the eight study groups: Groups 1–6 completed the survey via Web, IVRS, and paper, in one of the six possible orders; Groups 7–8 completed the survey twice, either by Web or by IVRS. The 20-item survey, including the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument (BFI), the LASA Quality of Life (QOL) scale, and the Subjective Significance Questionnaire (SSQ) adapted to bowel function, was completed from home on consecutive days. Mode equivalence was assessed by comparison of mean scores across modes and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and was compared to the test–retest reliability of Web and IVRS.

Results

Of 170 patients, 157 completed at least one survey and were included in analysis. Patients had mean age 56 (SD = 11), 53 % were male, 81 % white, 53 % colon, and 47 % rectal cancer; 78 % completed all assigned surveys. Mean scores for BFI total score, BFI subscale scores, LASA QOL, and adapted SSQ varied by mode by less than one-third of a score point. ICCs across mode were: BFI total score (Web–paper = 0.96, Web–IVRS = 0.97, paper–IVRS = 0.97); BFI subscales (range = 0.88–0.98); LASA QOL (Web–paper = 0.98, Web–IVRS = 0.78, paper–IVRS = 0.80); and SSQ (Web–paper = 0.92, Web–IVRS = 0.86, paper–IVRS = 0.79).

Conclusions

Mode equivalence was demonstrated for the BFI total score, BFI subscales, LASA QOL, and adapted SSQ, supporting the use of multiple modes of PRO data capture in clinical trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Temple, L. K., Bacik, J., Savatta, S. G., et al. (2005). The development of a validated instrument to evaluate bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 48(7), 1353–1365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, T. Y., Emertsen, K. J., & Laurberg, S. (2015). What are the best questionnaires to capture anorectal function after surgery in rectal cancer? Current Colorectal Cancer Reports, 11, 37–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong, C., Chen, J., Yu, C. L., Sham, M., & Lam, C. L. (2015). Systemic review recommends the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer colorectal cancer-specific module for measuring quality of life in colorectal cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(3), 266–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Locke, D. E., Decker, P. A., Sloan, J. A., et al. (2007). Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 34(6), 628–638.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(1), 139–144.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 337–347.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yarandi, H. (2004). Crossover designs and proc mixed in SAS. Paper SD04. In The proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group, Nashville, TN, 2004. http://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2004/SD04-Yarandi.pdf.

  12. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Walters, S. J., Campbell, M. J., & Paisley, S. (2001). Methods for determining sample sizes for studies involving health-related quality of life measures: A tutorial. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stratford, P. W., & Binkley, J. M. (1999). Applying the results of self-report measures to individual patients: An example using the Roland–Morris Questionnaire. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 29(4), 232–239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lundy, J. J., & Coons, S. J. (2011). Measurement equivalence of interactive voice response and paper versions of the EQ-5D in a cancer patient sample. Value in Health, 14(6), 867–871.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lundy, J. J., Coons, S. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2014). Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 229–237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rush, A. J., Bernstein, I. H., Trivedi, M. H., et al. (2006). An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the Hamilton rating scale for depression: A sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report. Biological Psychiatry, 59(6), 493–501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dunn, J. A., Arakawa, R., Greist, J. H., & Clayton, A. H. (2007). Assessing the onset of antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction using interactive voice response technology. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(4), 525–532.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Agel, J., Rockwood, T., Mundt, J. C., Greist, J. H., & Swiontkowski, M. (2001). Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics, 24(12), 1155–1157.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Cancer and Leukemia Group B Foundation (US) (Grant Number: 2U10CA037447-26). This study was also funded in part by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Core Grant P30 CA008748. The core grant provides support to institutional cores, such as Biostatistics and Pathology, which were used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Antonia V. Bennett & Ethan Basch

  2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1233 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Kathleen Keenoy, Marwan Shouery, Ethan Basch & Larissa K. Temple

Authors
  1. Antonia V. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Keenoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marwan Shouery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ethan Basch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Larissa K. Temple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larissa K. Temple.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bennett, A.V., Keenoy, K., Shouery, M. et al. Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper. Qual Life Res 25, 1123–1130 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1162-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1162-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation