Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 769–777

Comparison of 7-day and repeated 24-h recall of type 2 diabetes

  • A. V. Bennett
  • D. L. Patrick
  • D. M. Bushnell
  • C. F. Chiou
  • P. Diehr



Patient reporting of type 2 diabetes symptoms in a questionnaire with a 7-day recall period was expected to be different from symptom reports using a 7-day diary with repeated 24-h recall based on cognitive theory of memory processes and prior literature. This study compared these two types of recall in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D).


One hundred and forty adults with T2D completed a daily diary for 7 days containing 9 T2D-related symptom and impact items. On day 7, patients completed the same items with a 7-day recall period. We examined the concordance of 7-day recall with summary descriptors of the daily reports and compared the scores and the discriminant ability of 7-day recall and mean of daily reports.


Seven-day recall was most concordant with the mean of daily reports. The average difference in scores was small (range 0.22–0.77 on 11-point scale) and less than 0.5 standard deviations. For some items, the difference was positively associated with the variation in daily reports. The discriminant ability was comparable.


In this study population, a questionnaire with 7-day recall provided information consistent with a daily diary measure of the average week-long experience of T2D symptoms and impacts.


Questionnaires Mental recall Validation studies Diabetes mellitus type 2 Signs and symptoms 



Concordance correlation coefficient


Diabetes symptom checklist-revised


Food and Drug Administration


Glycated hemoglobin


Patient-reported outcome

SF-36v2 Acute

Short-form 36 health survey, version 2 Acute


  1. 1.
    Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FDA. (2009). Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stull, D. E., Leidy, N. K., Parasuraman, B., & Chassany, O. (2009). Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: Challenges and potential solutions. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 25(4), 929–942.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hufford, M. R., & Shiffman, S. (2003). Assessment methods for patient-reported outcomes. Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 11(2), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Homma, Y., Ando, T., Yoshida, M., Kageyama, S., Takei, M., Kimoto, K., et al. (2002). Voiding and incontinence frequencies: Variability of diary data and required diary length. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 21(3), 204–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kenton, K., Fitzgerald, M. P., & Brubaker, L. (2006). What is a clinician to do-believe the patient or her urinary diary? Journal of Urology, 176(2), 633–635. (discussion 5).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elser, D. M., Fantl, J. A., & McClish, D. K. (1995). Comparison of “subjective” and “objective” measures of severity of urinary incontinence in women. Program for Women Research Group. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 14(4), 311–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson, M. T., Ainsworth, B. E., Jacobs, D. R., & Leon, A. S. (2001). Validation of the Stanford 7-day recall to assess habitual physical activity. Annals of Epidemiology, 11(2), 145–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stel, V. S., Smit, J. H., Pluijm, S. M., Visser, M., Deeg, D. J., & Lips, P. (2004). Comparison of the LASA Physical Activity Questionnaire with a 7-day diary and pedometer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(3), 252–258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gmel, G., & Daeppen, J. B. (2007). Recall bias for seven-day recall measurement of alcohol consumption among emergency department patients: Implications for case-crossover designs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 303–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilton, M. E. (1989). A comparison of a prospective diary and two summary recall techniques for recording alcohol consumption. British Journal of Addiction, 84(9), 1085–1092.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stone, A. A., Broderick, J. E., Kaell, A. T., DelesPaul, P. A., & Porter, L. E. (2000). Does the peak-end phenomenon observed in laboratory pain studies apply to real-world pain in rheumatoid arthritics? The Journal of Pain, 1(3), 212–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stone, A. A., Broderick, J. E., Shiffman, S. S., & Schwartz, J. E. (2004). Understanding recall of weekly pain from a momentary assessment perspective: Absolute agreement, between- and within-person consistency, and judged change in weekly pain. Pain, 107(1–2), 61–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Shiffman, S. S. (2005). Variability of momentary pain predicts recall of weekly pain: A consequence of the peak (or salience) memory heuristic. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1340–1346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grootenhuis, P. A., Snoek, F. J., Heine, R. J., & Bouter, L. M. (1994). Development of a type 2 diabetes symptom checklist: A measure of symptom severity. Diabetic Medicine, 11(3), 253–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ware, J. E, Jr., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Diabetes Association. (2009). Standards of medical care in diabetes–2009. Diabetes Care, 32(Suppl 1), S13–S61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12(4 Suppl), 142S–158S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bennett, A. V., Patrick, D. L., Lymp, J. F., Edwards, T. C., & Goss, C. H. (2010). Comparison of 7-day and repeated 24-hour recall of symptoms of cystic fibrosis (in press). doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2010.08.008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. V. Bennett
    • 1
  • D. L. Patrick
    • 2
  • D. M. Bushnell
    • 3
  • C. F. Chiou
    • 4
  • P. Diehr
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Health Outcomes Research GroupMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health ServicesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Health Research Associates, IncMountlake TerraceUSA
  4. 4.Amgen, IncThousand OaksUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations