Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1435–1440 | Cite as

Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): a randomised crossover trial in cancer patients

  • Laura AshleyEmail author
  • Ada Keding
  • Julia Brown
  • Galina Velikova
  • Penny Wright
Brief Communication



The Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) assesses everyday problems experienced by cancer patients, including difficulties with self-care, work and relationships. Early development and psychometric evaluation studies have validated the SDI-21 for computer administration. However, several recent studies have administered the SDI-21 on paper. We sought to test the score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the SDI-21.


A randomised two-arm crossover trial in a sample of cancer patients with varied diagnoses. Patients completed electronic (via the internet) and paper versions of the SDI-21, with half randomly assigned to complete the electronic version first (n = 51) and half the paper version first (n = 60). Patients were asked to complete both versions at home, within 2 weeks. Analyses were performed for the SDI-21 summary score and three subscales.


Score distributions and internal reliabilities for the paper and electronic versions were highly similar. There were no significant differences between mean summary or subscale scores for the two administration modes. All mean score differences (all <0.25 of a scale point) were well below the SDI-21’s established minimally important differences, and all 95 % confidence intervals were narrow and included zero. Intraclass correlations between paper and electronic scores were uniformly high and significant (all ≥0.85) and above the standard acceptable level of reliability.


Paper and electronic versions of the SDI-21 can be considered equivalent and used interchangeably. This is important because, despite the growth of electronic formats, paper versions are currently still necessary to ensure inclusive use of the SDI-21 with representative samples.


Cancer Oncology Social Difficulties Inventory Electronic questionnaire Score equivalence Quality of life 



This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0107-12239). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Prof. Galina Velikova, Ada Keding and Dr Penny Wright were supported by a Cancer Research UK programme grant (C7775/A7424). The authors wish to thank David Forman and Amy Downing for input into the original study design, members of the psychosocial oncology and clinical practice research group for data collection, and everyone who participated in the study. The authors report no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M. A., Lynch, P., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Social problems in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 87(10), 1099–1104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guidance on cancer services: Improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. Accessed January 2, 2012 from
  3. 3.
    Wright, E. P., Kiely, M., Johnston, C., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2005). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 373–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright, P., Smith, A., Roberts, K., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. (2007). Screening for social difficulties in cancer patients: Clinical utility of the Social Difficulties Inventory. British Journal of Cancer, 97(8), 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wright, P., Marshall, L., Smith, A. B., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. (2008). Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI). European Journal of Cancer, 44(11), 1529–1535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wright, P., Smith, A. B., Keding, A., & Velikova, G. (2011). The social difficulties inventory (SDI): Development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff. Psycho-Oncology, 20(1), 36–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanif, N., Dharni, N., Smith, A., Chattoo, S., Velikova, G., Bradley, C., et al. (2011). Translation of the social difficulties inventory (SDI-21) into three south Asian languages and preliminary evaluation of SDI-21(Urdu). Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 431–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simon, A. E., & Wardle, J. (2008). Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial wellbeing in cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 44(4), 572–578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stevinson, C., Lydon, A., & Amir, Z. (2011). Cancer support group participation in the United Kingdom: A national survey. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(5), 675–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Health, Macmillan Cancer Support and NHS Improvement. (2010). National cancer survivorship initiative vision. Accessed January 2, 2012 from
  11. 11.
    Greenlaw, C., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: Testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review, 33(5), 464–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maddams, J., Brewster, D., Gavin, A., Steward, J., Elliott, J., Utley, M., et al. (2009). Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: Estimates for 2008. British Journal of Cancer, 101(3), 541–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Office for National Statistics. (2010). Internet access: Households and individuals, 2010. Accessed January 2, 2012 from—households-and-individuals/2010/index.html.
  15. 15.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., & Hamill-Ruth, R. J. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110(1–2), 310–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bishop, F. L., Lewis, G., Harris, S., McKay, N., Prentice, P., Thiel, H., et al. (2010). A within-subjects trial to test the equivalence of online and paper outcome measures: The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11, 113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pocock, S. J. (1988). Clinical trials: A practical approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu, R. C., Thorpe, K., Ross, H., Micevski, V., Marquez, C., & Straus, S. E. (2009). Comparing administration of questionnaires via the internet to pen-and-paper in patients with heart failure: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11, e3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Accessed February 7, 2012 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Ashley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ada Keding
    • 1
  • Julia Brown
    • 2
  • Galina Velikova
    • 1
  • Penny Wright
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research GroupUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Clinical Trials Research UnitUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations