Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to reduce respondent burden and decrease data errors in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) intended for a postal survey measuring health and lifestyle factors that may affect quality of life in older people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

Participants (n = 18) were recruited from a database of outpatient visits. Using the qualitative diagnostic method, cognitive debriefing, participants completed five standardized questionnaires; Frenchay Activities Index, Barthel Index, Simple Lifestyle Indicator Questionnaire, EuroQoL EQ-5D and Personal Resources Questionnaire 2000. PRO item issues and respondent behaviors such as skipping items were recorded. Data collection was an iterative process whereby difficulties experienced by 2–3 subjects were used to modify the survey for following respondents until data saturation was reached.

Results

Most respondents had serious difficulties with at least one PRO item. Response errors fell into three main categories: (1) respondents did not read instructions and completed the item incorrectly, (2) respondents did not understand the question and required examples to clarify and (3) respondents felt that the pre-determined response options did not apply to them. PRO reformatting, minor modifications to item wording and addition of item examples improved precision and reduced respondent burden.

Conclusion

Our findings support the notion that methods such as cognitive debriefing help improve precision of self-reported measures in a special population such as ours.

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

Abbreviations

BI:

Barthel Index

FAI:

Frenchay Activities Index

MS:

Multiple Sclerosis

PRQ2000:

Personal Resources Questionnaire version 2000

PROs:

Patient-Reported Outcomes

QoL:

Quality of Life

SLIQ:

Simple Lifestyle Indicator Questionnaire

References

  1. Leidy, N. K., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., 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. United States Federal Drug Administration Agency. (2006). Guideline for Industry. Patient reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Federal Register.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mullin, P. A., Lohr, K. N., Bresnahan, B. W., & McNulty, P. (2000). Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Quality of Life Research, 9(1), 13–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effect of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Sullivan, S. B. (2007). Multiple sclerosis. In S. B. O’Sullivan & T. J. Schmitz (Eds.), Physical rehabilitation. Assessment and treatment. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mallinson, S. (2002). Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine, 54(1), 11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hak, T., Willems, D., van der Wal, G., & Visser, F. (2004). A qualitative validation of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 417–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisk, J. D., Brown, M. G., Sketris, I. S., Metz, L. M., Murray, T. J., & Stadnyk, K. J. (2005). A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 76(1), 58–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke, H. H., & Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions and influencing answers. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 229–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McColl, E., Meadows, K., & Barofsky, I. (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology and quality of life assessment. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 217–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turnbull, J. C., Kersten, P., Habib, M., McLellan, L., Mulee, M. A., & George, S. (2000). Validation of the Frenchay Activities Index in a general population aged 16 years and older. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(8), 1034–1038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yeo, D., Faleiro, R., & Lincoln, N. B. (1995). Barthel ADL index: A comparison of administration methods. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9(1), 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Godwin, M., Streight, S., Dyachuk, E., van den Hooven, E. C., Ploemacher, J., Seguin, R., et al. (2008). Testing the Simple Lifestyle Indicator Questionnaire: Initial psychometric study. Canadian Family Physician, 54(1), 76–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 169–180.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weinert, C., & Brandt, P. A. (1987). Measuring social support with the Personal Resource Questionnaire. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 9(4), 589–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Korner-Bitensky, N., Wood-Dauphine, S., Siemiatyki, J., Shapire, S., & Becker, R. (1994). Health-related information postdischarge: Telephone versus face-to- face interviewing. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75(12), 1287–1296.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Groenvold, M., Klee, M. C., Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1997). Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient-observer agreement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(4), 441–450.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D., Cleeland, C. S. FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value in Health, 10(SUPPL. 2), S86–S93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ojanen, V., & Gogates, G. (2006). A briefing on cognitive debriefing. Good Clinical Practice Journal, 13(12), 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research support was provided by the Eastern Health Authority, the Memorial University Dr. W. Ingram Award and Faculty of Medicine Neurology Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research, Rehabilitation Program, Eastern Health Authority, L.A. Miller Centre, 100 Forest Rd., St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Michelle Ploughman & Mark Austin

  2. Primary Healthcare Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Michelle Ploughman & Marshall Godwin

  3. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Mark Stefanelli

Authors
  1. Michelle Ploughman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Stefanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marshall Godwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Ploughman.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ploughman, M., Austin, M., Stefanelli, M. et al. Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 19, 483–487 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9602-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9602-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation