The meaning of vaguely quantified frequency response options on a quality of life scale depends on respondents’ medical status and age
- 225 Downloads
Self-report items in quality of life (QoL) scales commonly use vague quantifiers like “sometimes” or “often” to measure the frequency of health-related experiences. This study examined whether the meaning of such vaguely quantified response options differs depending on people’s medical status and age, which may undermine the validity of QoL group comparisons.
Respondents (n = 600) rated the frequency of positive and negative QoL experiences using vague quantifiers (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) and provided open-ended numeric frequency counts for the same items. Negative binomial regression analyses examined whether the numeric frequencies associated with each vague quantifier differed between medical status (no vs. one or more medical conditions) and age (18–40 vs. 60+ years) groups.
Compared to respondents without a chronic condition, those with a medical condition assigned a higher numeric frequency to the same vague quantifiers for negative QoL experiences; this effect was not evident for positive QoL experiences. Older respondents’ numeric frequencies were more extreme (i.e., lower at the low end and somewhat higher at the high end of the response range) than those of younger respondents. After adjusting for these effects, differences in QoL became somewhat more pronounced between medical status groups, but not between age groups.
The results suggest that people with different medical backgrounds and age do not interpret vague frequency quantifiers on a QoL scale in the same way. Open-ended numeric frequency reports may be useful to detect and potentially correct for differences in the meaning of vague quantifiers.
KeywordsQuality of life Chronic illness Age Frequency ratings Vague quantifiers Self-report
We would like to thank Joan Broderick, PhD, Doerte Junghaenel, PhD, and Alicia Bolton, PhD, for helpful discussions in preparation of this manuscript.
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (R01 AG042407).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Stefan Schneider declares that he has no conflict of interest. Arthur A. Stone is a Senior Scientist with the Gallup Organization.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 3.Volkman, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads (pp. 273–294). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
- 11.Schwarz, N. (2006). Measurement: Aging and the psychology of self-report. In L. L. Carstensen & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), When I’m 64 (pp. 219–230). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 22.Knäuper, B., Schwarz, N., & Park, D. (2004). Frequency reports across age groups. Journal of Official Statistics, 20, 91–96.Google Scholar
- 26.Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., & Stone, A. A. (2008). Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research, 17, 1239–1246.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1179–1194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Amtmann, D., Molton, I. R., & Jensen, M. P. (2012). Six patient-reported outcome measurement information system short form measures have negligible age-or diagnosis-related differential item functioning in individuals with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93, 1289–1291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Gershon, R. C., Lai, J. S., Bode, R., Choi, S., Moy, C., Bleck, T., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: Quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: Item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Quality of Life Research, 21, 475–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Rothrock, N. E., Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K., Yount, S. E., Riley, W., & Cella, D. (2010). Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1195–1204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Fahrmeir, L., & Tutz, G. (2013). Multivariate statistical modelling based on generalized linear models. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 36.United States Census Bureau. (2014). Current population survey data on educational attainment. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/index.html. Accessed February 22, 2016.
- 38.Junghaenel, D. U., Christodoulou, C., Lai, J.-S., & Stone, A. A. (2011). Demographic correlates of fatigue in the US general population: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71, 117–123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 46.Keding, A., Böhnke, J. R., Croudace, T. J., Richmond, S. J., & MacPherson, H. (2015). Validity of single item responses to short message service texts to monitor depression: An mHealth sub-study of the UK ACUDep trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15, 56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 47.Cameron, I. M., Scott, N. W., Adler, M., & Reid, I. C. (2014). A comparison of three methods of assessing differential item functioning (DIF) in the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale: Ordinal logistic regression, Rasch analysis and the Mantel Chi square procedure. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2883–2888.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar