Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self-Reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Status Using Face-to-Face Administration

  • Deborah A. Fisher
  • Corrine I. Voils
  • Cynthia J. Coffman
  • Janet M. Grubber
  • Tara K. Dudley
  • Sally W. Vernon
  • John H. Bond
  • Dawn Provenzale
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-developed colorectal cancer screening questionnaire. Methods We conducted 36 cognitive interviews and made iterative changes to the questionnaire to improve comprehension. The revised questionnaire was administered face-to-face to 201 participants. The primary outcome was agreement between questionnaire responses and medical records for whether or not a participant was up-to-date for any colorectal cancer screening test. Results Comprehension of descriptions and questions was generally good; however, the barium enema description required several revisions. The sensitivity of the questionnaire for up-to-date screening status was 94%, specificity 63%, and concordance 88%. Conclusions The modified questionnaire was highly sensitive for determining if a person was up-to-date for any colorectal cancer screening test, although the specificity was low. Given the difficulty of obtaining all relevant records, self-report using this questionnaire is a reasonable option for identifying people who have undergone testing.

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms Mass screening Validation studies Questionnaires 

References

  1. 1.
    Vernon SW, Briss PA, Tiro JA, Warnecke RB. Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research. Cancer. 2004;101:1131–1145. doi:10.1002/cncr.20513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vernon SW, Meissner H, Klabunde C, et al. Measures for ascertaining use of colorectal cancer screening in behavioral, health services, and epidemiologic research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:898–905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier M, Calonge N, Cutter G, et al. Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:229–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gordon NP, Hiatt RA, Lampert DI. Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:566–570. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.7.566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montano DE, Phillips WR. Cancer screening by primary care physicians: a comparison of rates obtained from physician self-report, patient survey, and chart audit. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:795–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Willis GBRP, Bercini D. The use of verbal report methods in the development and testing of survey questionnaires. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991;5:251–267. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:544–560. doi:10.1053/gast.2003.50044.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agresti ACB. Approximate is better than ‘exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat. 1998;52:119–126. doi:10.2307/2685469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tisnado DM, Adams JL, Liu H, et al. What is the concordance between the medical record and patient self-report as data sources for ambulatory care? Med Care. 2006;44:132–140. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000196952.15921.bf.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 4th ed. Belmont: Duxbury Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:389–394. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Partin MR, Slater JS, Caplan L. Randomized controlled trial of a repeat mammography intervention: effect of adherence definitions on results. Prev Med. 2005;41:734–740. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.05.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blair EBS. Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. J Consum Res. 1987;14:280–288. doi:10.1086/209112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jobe JBMD. Cognition and survey measurement: History and overview. Appl Cogn Physchol. 1991;5:175–192. doi:10.1002/acp.2350050303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garbers S, Chiasson MA. Inadequate functional health literacy in Spanish as a barrier to cervical cancer screening among immigrant Latinas in New York City. Prev Chronic Dis 2004;1:A07.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291:71–78. doi:10.1001/jama.291.1.71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolf MS, Rademaker A, Bennett CL, et al. Development of a brief survey on colon cancer screening knowledge and attitudes among veterans. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005;2:A11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson JF. The crucial link between literacy and health. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:875–878.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah A. Fisher
    • 1
    • 2
  • Corrine I. Voils
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cynthia J. Coffman
    • 1
    • 3
  • Janet M. Grubber
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tara K. Dudley
    • 1
  • Sally W. Vernon
    • 4
  • John H. Bond
    • 5
  • Dawn Provenzale
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Health Services Research in Primary CareDurham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and BioinformaticsDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Division of Health Promotion & Behavioral Sciences, Center for Health Promotion & Prevention ResearchUniversity of Texas-Houston School of Public HealthHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Gastroenterology SectionMinneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations