Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Applying mixed methods to pretest the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument

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

Abstract

Purpose

Pretesting is key in the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We describe a mixed-methods approach based on interviews and Rasch measurement methods in the pretesting of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument.

Methods

We used cognitive interviews to pretest the PU-QOL in 35 patients with pressure ulcers with the view to identifying problematic items, followed by Rasch analysis to examine response options, appropriateness of the item series and biases due to question ordering (item fit). We then compared findings in an interactive and iterative process to identify potential strengths and weaknesses of PU-QOL items, and guide decision-making about further revisions to items and design/layout.

Results

Although cognitive interviews largely supported items, they highlighted problems with layout, response options and comprehension. Findings from the Rasch analysis identified problems with response options through reversed thresholds.

Conclusions

The use of a mixed-methods approach in pretesting the PU-QOL instrument proved beneficial for identifying problems with scale layout, response options and framing/wording of items. Rasch measurement methods are a useful addition to standard qualitative pretesting for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of early stage PRO instruments.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PU:

Pressure ulcer

HRQL:

Health-related quality of life

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

References

  1. Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 14, 1–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ, 7351, 1417–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hobart, J., Cano, S., Zajicek, J., & Thompson, A. (2007). Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: Problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurology, 1094–1095.

  4. Hobart, J. C., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technology Assessment, 12, 1–200.

    Google Scholar 

  5. US Department of Health & Human Services FDA. (2009). Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Retrieved August 2010 from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation?guidance/default.htm.

  6. Jobe, J. B., & Mingay, D. J. (1989). Cognitive research improves questionnaires. American Journal of Public Health, 1053–1055.

  7. Jobe, J. B. (2003). Cognitive psychology and self-reports: Models and methods. Quality of Life Research, 3, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988). The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care, 724–735.

  11. Ware, J. E., Harris, W. J., Gandek, B., Rogers, B., & Reese, PR. (1997). MAP-R for windows: Multitrait/multi-item analysis program—revised user’s guide. Boston: Health Assessment Lab.

  12. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago.

  13. Fisher, W. P., Elbaum, B., & Coulter, A. (2010). Reliability, precision, and measurement in the context of data from ability tests, surveys, and assessments. Journal of Physics, Conference Series, 1. http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/238/1/012036/pdf/1742-6596_238_1012036.pdf.

  14. Green, K. E., & Smith, R. M. (1987). A comparison of two methods of decomposing item difficulties. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 4, 328.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lord, F. M. (1983). Small N justifies Rasch model. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 51–61). New York: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gorecki, C., Brown, J. M., Nelson, E. A., Briggs, M., Schoonhoven, L., Dealey, C., et al. (2009). Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: A systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1175–1183.

  18. NICE. (2005). CG29 Pressure ulcer management. Retrieved from the NICE, UK. website: www.nice.org.uk.

  19. Franks, P. J., & Collier, M. E. (2001). Quality of life: The cost to the individual. In M. Morison (Ed.), The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (pp. 37–45). London: Harcourt Publishers Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lyons, S., & Sorenson, M. (2007). Quality of life in spinal cord injury patients with pressure ulcers. SCI Nursing: Electronic Journal, 3.

  21. Thein, H. H., Gomes, T., Krahn, M. D. & Wodchis, W. P. (2009). Health status utilities and the impact of pressure ulcers in long-term care residents in Ontario. Quality of Life Research, 81–89.

  22. Essex, H. N., Clark, M., Sims, J., Warriner, A., & Cullum, N. (2009). Health-related quality of life in hospital inpatients with pressure ulceration: Assessment using generic health-related quality of life measures. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 6, 797–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Franks, P. J., Winterberg, H., & Moffatt, C. J. (2002). Health-related quality of life and pressure ulceration assessment in patients treated in the community. Wound Repair & Regeneration, 3, 133–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gorecki, C., Lamping, D. L., Brown, J. M., Madill, A., Firth, J., & Nixon, J. (2010). Development of a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in pressure ulcers: a patient-focused approach. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 1525–1534.

  25. Andrich, D. (2002). Implication and applications of modern test theory in the context of outcomes based research. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. EPUAP. (1999). Pressure ulcer treatment guidelines. Retrieved August 12, 2006: http://www.epuap.org/gltreatment.html.

  27. McColl, E. (2005). Developing questionnaires. In P. Fayers & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (pp. 9–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Willis, G. B. (1999). Cognitive interviewing: A “how to” guide. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/areas/cognitive/interview.pdf.

  29. Willis, G. B., & Lessler, J. T. (1999). Question appraisal system: QAS-99. Retrieved http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/areas/cognitive/qas99.pdf.

  30. 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, 10, 1239–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Andrich, D. (1978). Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 561–573.

  32. Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). RUMM 2030. Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Andrich, D., Luo, G., & Sheridan, B. E. (2004). RUMM 2020 [program]. 4.0 for windows (upgrade 4600.0109) version. Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd; 1997–2004.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hagquist, C., & Andrich, D. (2004). Is the sense of coherence instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch modelling. Personality Individual Differences, 955–968.

  35. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chocago: MESA.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hobart, J. C., Riazi, A., Thompson, A. J., Styles, I. M., Ingram, W., Vickery, P. J., et al. (2006). Getting the measure of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: The Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88). Brain, 224–234.

  37. Lamping, D. L., Schroter, S., Marquis, P., Marrel, A., Duprat-Lomon, I., & Sagnier, P. P. (2002). The community-acquired pneumonia symptom questionnaire: A new, patient-based outcome measure to evaluate symptoms in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest, 3, 920–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schroter, S., & Lamping, D. L. (2004). Coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire (CROQ): Development and validation of a new, patient based measure of outcome in coronary bypass surgery and angioplasty. Heart, 90(12), 1460–1466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Skevington, S. M., Sartorius, N., Amir, M., Sartorius, N., Orley, J., et al. (2004). Developing methods for assessing quality of life in different cultural settings—the history of the WHOQOL instruments. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., Kline Leidy, N., Patrick, D. L., & Petrie, C. D. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value in Health, 8, 1075–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the outcome methodologists: Sara Schroter, Katerina Hilari, Yasmene Alavi, Jennifer Petrillo, and the clinical experts: Lyn Wilson, Elizabeth McGinnis, E Andrea Nelson, Nikki Stubbs, Susanne Coleman, Michelle Briggs, Carol Dealey for participation in the appraisal process. Financial support was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG-0407-10056). The views and opinions expressed within this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    C. Gorecki, J. Nixon & J. M. Brown

  2. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    D. L. Lamping

  3. Clinical Neurology Research Group, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK

    S. Cano

Authors
  1. C. Gorecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. L. Lamping
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Nixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. M. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Gorecki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gorecki, C., Lamping, D.L., Nixon, J. et al. Applying mixed methods to pretest the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life (PU-QOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 21, 441–451 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9980-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9980-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation