Frames of Reference in Self-Reports of Health, Well-Being, Fatigue, and Pain: a Qualitative Examination
- 249 Downloads
Self-reports in survey research can be affected by internal comparison standards, or Frames of Reference (FoRs), that people apply when making their ratings. The goal of this study was to determine which FoRs people naturally use when rating their health, subjective well-being, fatigue, and pain. We further examined whether FoRs varied by content domain and age group. One hundred adults from a community sample of the US general population participated in individual semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants provided self-report ratings on two of the four content domains and were then systematically queried about FoRs. Interview responses were summarized and coded into broad FoR categories. Four broad FoR categories emerged: References to (1) Other People, (2) an Earlier Time in Life, (3) an Important Event in the Past, and (4) a Hypothetical Situation. FoRs were reported in the majority (80.5%) of responses and multiple FoRs were reported in 34% of responses. The reporting of FoRs was evident for all domains, but was more prevalent for well-being compared to pain. References to a Hypothetical Situation were only mentioned in the well-being and health domains. For health, references to Other People were more frequently reported at older compared to younger ages. Our results extend prior work by demonstrating that participants’ reporting of FoRs is evident in ratings of various content domains. They further suggest that a limited number of FoRs are used and that their identification holds promise for understanding and controlling systematic group differences in FoRs.
KeywordsFrames of reference Self-report Comparison standard Health Well-being Qualitative research United States Symptoms
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (R01 AG042407, PI: Arthur A. Stone, Ph.D.). The authors would like to thank Mona Martin, Carla Ascoytia, Adam Bailey, Julia Correll, and Beatriz Medina for their valuable contributions to the study data collection and analysis efforts.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
A.A.S. is a Senior Scientist with the Gallup Organization. K.P.McC., L.M.S., and S.C.K. are employees of Health Research Associates (HRA), which was contracted as a research partner for the qualitative interviews for this project.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cleeland, C. (1994). Pain assessment: global use of the brief pain inventory. Annals of Academic Medicine Singapore, 23, 129–138.Google Scholar
- Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Wellbeing, 3, 1–43.Google Scholar
- Friese, S. (2015). ATLAS.Ti 7: User guide and reference. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.Google Scholar
- Jordan, K., Proskorovsky, I., Lewis, P., Ishak, J., Payne, K., Lordan, N., et al. (2014). Effect of general symptom level, specific adverse events, treatment patterns, and patient characteristics on health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma: results of a European, multicenter cohort study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 22, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ostbye, T., Krause, K. M., Norton, M. C., Tschanz, J., Sanders, L., Hayden, K., et al. (2006). Ten dimensions of health and their relationships with overall self-reported health and survival in a predominately religiously active elderly population: the cache county memory study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tourangeau, R. (1991). Context effects on responses to attitude questions: Attitudes as memory structures. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Contextual effects in social and psychological research (pp. 35–48). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln: QualityMetric Incorporated.Google Scholar