Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1193–1197 | Cite as

Comparison of face-to-face interview and telephone interview administration of COPD assessment test: a randomized study

  • Guilherme F. da Silva
  • Maria Tereza A. Morano
  • Maria Penha U. Sales
  • Natalia B. Olegário
  • Antonio George M. Cavalcante
  • Eanes D. B. Pereira
Article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the measurement properties of the COPD assessment test (CAT) in a randomized trial comparing a face-to-face interview (FFI) with a telephone interview (TI).

Methods

A randomized study was conducted at two teaching hospitals in Fortaleza, Brazil. Patients were randomly assigned to answer the CAT questionnaire either in a FFI or by TI. The two groups were assessed for internal consistency reliability, cross-sectional validity and test–retest reliability. All patients performed spirometry and answered the modified medical research council dyspnea scale and the St. George’s respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ).

Results

The total scores of the CAT questionnaire were similar for face-to-face and TI groups, 20.71 (95 % CI 18–23.4) versus 20.81 (95 % CI 19.31–21.7), respectively. For both mode of administration, we found good internal consistency reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.74 (95 % CI 0.61–0.84) to 0.89 (95 % CI 0.84–0.93) for the TI and FFI, respectively. In general, moderate-to-high correlations of CAT with SGRQ were observed, independent of the administration format. For the test–retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficients were very similar for both FFI and TI group 0.96 (95 % CI 0.93–0.97) versus 0.98 (95 % CI 0.96–0.98), respectively.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the CAT questionnaire administration either in a FFI or by TI presents moderate-to-high measurement properties. This provides support for the use of both modes of questionnaire administration.

Keywords

Health status COPD assessment test (CAT) Face-to-face interview questionnaire Telephone interview questionnaire 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. McTaggart-Cowan for her generous assistance on language and grammar. The authors wish to thank MCT/CNPq for support of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung disease (GOLD). (2008) Executive summary: Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. Medical communications resources, Available from www.goldcopd.com.
  2. 2.
    Lopez, A. D., Shibuya, K., Rao, C., Mathers, C. D., Hansell, A. L., Held, L. S., et al. (2006). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Current burden and future projections. European Respiratory Journal, 27, 397–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dodd, J. W., Marns, P. L., Clark, A. L., Ingram, K. A., Fowler, R. P., & Canavan, J. L. (2012). The COPD assessment test (CAT): Short- and medium-term response to pulmonary rehabilitation. COPD, 9, 390–394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mackay, A. J., Donaldson, G. C., Patel, A. R., Jones, P. W., Hurst, J. R., & Wedzicha, J. A. (2012). Usefulness of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test to evaluate severity of COPD exacerbations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1(85), 1218–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghobadi, H., Ahari, S. S., Kameli, A., & Lari, S. M. (2012). The relationship between COPD assessment test (CAT) scores and severity of airflow obstruction in stable COPD patients. Tanaffos, 11, 22–26.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones, P. W., Harding, G., Berry, P., Wiklund, I., Chen, W. H., & Leidy, N. K. (2009). Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. European Respiratory Journal, 34, 648–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tourangeau. R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. In Chapter 10: Mode of data collection. (pp. 289–312) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27, 281–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiklund, I., Berry, P., Lu, K. X., Fang, J., & Fu, C. (2010). The Chinese translation of COPD assessment test™ (CAT) provides a valid and reliable measurement of COPD health status in Chinese COPD patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 181, A3575.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seohyun, L., Lee, J. S., Song, J. W., Chang-Min, C., Shim, T. S., & Kim, T. B. (2010). Validation of the Korean version of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test (CAT) and Dyspnea-12 questionnaire. Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, 69, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moreira, G. L., Pitta, F., Ramos, D., Nascimento, C. S. C., Barzon, D., Kovelis, D., et al. (2009). Portuguese-language version of the chronic respiratory questionnaire: A validity and reproducibility study. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 35, 737–744.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silva, P. N. C., Jardim, J. R., Souza, G. M. C., Hyland, M. E., & Nascimento, O. A. (2012). Cultural adaptation and reproducibility of the breathing problems questionnaire for use in patients with COPD in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 38, 339–345.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinto, J. M. S., González, J. R., Arenillas, J. I. C., Nogueras, A. M. M., & Gómez, F. P. (2010). Quality of life related to health of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma assessed by SGRQ. Portuguese Journal of Pneumology, 16, 543–558.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schünemann, H. J., Goldstein, R., Mador, M. J., McKim, D., Stahl, E., Puhan, M., et al. (2005). A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. European Respiratory Journal, 25, 31–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Puhan, M., Behnke, M., Frey, M., Grueter, T., Brandli, O., Lichtenschopf, A., et al. (2004). Self-administration and interviewer-administration of the German Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire: instrument development and assessment of validity and reliability in two randomised studies. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 1–29.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kovelis, D., Segretti, N. O., Probst, S., Lareau, S. C., Brunetto, A. F., & Pitta, F. (2008). Validação do Modified Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire e da escala do Medical Research Council para o uso em pacientes com doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica no Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 35(8), 737–744.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sousa, T. C., Jardim, J. R., & Jones, P. (2000). Validação do Questionário do Hospital Saint George na Doença Respiratória (SGRQ) em pacientes portadores de doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica no Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 26(3), 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsakos, G., Bernabé, E., O’Brien, K., Sheiham, A., & de Oliveira, C. (2008). Comparison of the self-administered and interviewer-administered modes of the child-OIDP. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 40–48.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook, C. (2010). Mode of administration bias. The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 18, 61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Delgado-Rodriquez, M., & Llorca, J. (2004). Bias. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsiligianni, I. G., der Molen, T., Moraitaki, D., Lopez, I., Kocks, J. W. H., Karagiannis, K., et al. (2012). Assessing health status in COPD. A head-to-head comparison between the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ). BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 12, 20–29.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E., Griffith, L., McIlroy, W., Willan, A., et al. (1993). Interviewer versus self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 529–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinberger, M., Oddone, E. Z., Samsa, G. P., & Landsman, P. B. (1996). Are health related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 135–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Education at a Glance 2012: OECD indicators visit: www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guilherme F. da Silva
    • 1
  • Maria Tereza A. Morano
    • 2
  • Maria Penha U. Sales
    • 2
  • Natalia B. Olegário
    • 2
  • Antonio George M. Cavalcante
    • 1
  • Eanes D. B. Pereira
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)FortalezaBrazil
  2. 2.Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart GomesSecretaria de Saúde do Estado do Ceará (SESA)FortalezaBrazil

Personalised recommendations