Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of face-to-face interview and telephone interview administration of COPD assessment test: a randomized study

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

Abstract

Objective

To assess the measurement properties of the COPD assessment test (CAT) in a randomized trial comparing a face-to-face interview (FFI) with a telephone interview (TI).

Methods

A randomized study was conducted at two teaching hospitals in Fortaleza, Brazil. Patients were randomly assigned to answer the CAT questionnaire either in a FFI or by TI. The two groups were assessed for internal consistency reliability, cross-sectional validity and test–retest reliability. All patients performed spirometry and answered the modified medical research council dyspnea scale and the St. George’s respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ).

Results

The total scores of the CAT questionnaire were similar for face-to-face and TI groups, 20.71 (95 % CI 18–23.4) versus 20.81 (95 % CI 19.31–21.7), respectively. For both mode of administration, we found good internal consistency reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.74 (95 % CI 0.61–0.84) to 0.89 (95 % CI 0.84–0.93) for the TI and FFI, respectively. In general, moderate-to-high correlations of CAT with SGRQ were observed, independent of the administration format. For the test–retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficients were very similar for both FFI and TI group 0.96 (95 % CI 0.93–0.97) versus 0.98 (95 % CI 0.96–0.98), respectively.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the CAT questionnaire administration either in a FFI or by TI presents moderate-to-high measurement properties. This provides support for the use of both modes of questionnaire administration.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung disease (GOLD). (2008) Executive summary: Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. Medical communications resources, Available from www.goldcopd.com.

  2. Lopez, A. D., Shibuya, K., Rao, C., Mathers, C. D., Hansell, A. L., Held, L. S., et al. (2006). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Current burden and future projections. European Respiratory Journal, 27, 397–412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dodd, J. W., Marns, P. L., Clark, A. L., Ingram, K. A., Fowler, R. P., & Canavan, J. L. (2012). The COPD assessment test (CAT): Short- and medium-term response to pulmonary rehabilitation. COPD, 9, 390–394.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mackay, A. J., Donaldson, G. C., Patel, A. R., Jones, P. W., Hurst, J. R., & Wedzicha, J. A. (2012). Usefulness of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test to evaluate severity of COPD exacerbations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1(85), 1218–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghobadi, H., Ahari, S. S., Kameli, A., & Lari, S. M. (2012). The relationship between COPD assessment test (CAT) scores and severity of airflow obstruction in stable COPD patients. Tanaffos, 11, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jones, P. W., Harding, G., Berry, P., Wiklund, I., Chen, W. H., & Leidy, N. K. (2009). Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. European Respiratory Journal, 34, 648–654.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tourangeau. R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. In Chapter 10: Mode of data collection. (pp. 289–312) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  8. Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27, 281–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiklund, I., Berry, P., Lu, K. X., Fang, J., & Fu, C. (2010). The Chinese translation of COPD assessment test™ (CAT) provides a valid and reliable measurement of COPD health status in Chinese COPD patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 181, A3575.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Seohyun, L., Lee, J. S., Song, J. W., Chang-Min, C., Shim, T. S., & Kim, T. B. (2010). Validation of the Korean version of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test (CAT) and Dyspnea-12 questionnaire. Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, 69, 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moreira, G. L., Pitta, F., Ramos, D., Nascimento, C. S. C., Barzon, D., Kovelis, D., et al. (2009). Portuguese-language version of the chronic respiratory questionnaire: A validity and reproducibility study. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 35, 737–744.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Silva, P. N. C., Jardim, J. R., Souza, G. M. C., Hyland, M. E., & Nascimento, O. A. (2012). Cultural adaptation and reproducibility of the breathing problems questionnaire for use in patients with COPD in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 38, 339–345.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pinto, J. M. S., González, J. R., Arenillas, J. I. C., Nogueras, A. M. M., & Gómez, F. P. (2010). Quality of life related to health of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma assessed by SGRQ. Portuguese Journal of Pneumology, 16, 543–558.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schünemann, H. J., Goldstein, R., Mador, M. J., McKim, D., Stahl, E., Puhan, M., et al. (2005). A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. European Respiratory Journal, 25, 31–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Puhan, M., Behnke, M., Frey, M., Grueter, T., Brandli, O., Lichtenschopf, A., et al. (2004). Self-administration and interviewer-administration of the German Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire: instrument development and assessment of validity and reliability in two randomised studies. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 1–29.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kovelis, D., Segretti, N. O., Probst, S., Lareau, S. C., Brunetto, A. F., & Pitta, F. (2008). Validação do Modified Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire e da escala do Medical Research Council para o uso em pacientes com doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica no Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 35(8), 737–744.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sousa, T. C., Jardim, J. R., & Jones, P. (2000). Validação do Questionário do Hospital Saint George na Doença Respiratória (SGRQ) em pacientes portadores de doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica no Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Pneumology, 26(3), 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsakos, G., Bernabé, E., O’Brien, K., Sheiham, A., & de Oliveira, C. (2008). Comparison of the self-administered and interviewer-administered modes of the child-OIDP. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 40–48.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook, C. (2010). Mode of administration bias. The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 18, 61–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Delgado-Rodriquez, M., & Llorca, J. (2004). Bias. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 635–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsiligianni, I. G., der Molen, T., Moraitaki, D., Lopez, I., Kocks, J. W. H., Karagiannis, K., et al. (2012). Assessing health status in COPD. A head-to-head comparison between the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ). BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 12, 20–29.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E., Griffith, L., McIlroy, W., Willan, A., et al. (1993). Interviewer versus self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 529–534.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Weinberger, M., Oddone, E. Z., Samsa, G. P., & Landsman, P. B. (1996). Are health related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 135–140.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Education at a Glance 2012: OECD indicators visit: www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. McTaggart-Cowan for her generous assistance on language and grammar. The authors wish to thank MCT/CNPq for support of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Rua Barbara de Alencar 1401, Fortaleza, Ceará, 60140000, Brazil

    Guilherme F. da Silva, Antonio George M. Cavalcante & Eanes D. B. Pereira

  2. Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes, Secretaria de Saúde do Estado do Ceará (SESA), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil

    Maria Tereza A. Morano, Maria Penha U. Sales & Natalia B. Olegário

Authors
  1. Guilherme F. da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Tereza A. Morano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Penha U. Sales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natalia B. Olegário
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonio George M. Cavalcante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eanes D. B. Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eanes D. B. Pereira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

da Silva, G.F., Morano, M.T.A., Sales, M.P.U. et al. Comparison of face-to-face interview and telephone interview administration of COPD assessment test: a randomized study. Qual Life Res 23, 1193–1197 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0563-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0563-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation