Assessing Psychometric Equivalence of Paper-and-Pencil and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Modes of Administration for the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193902
Title:
Assessing Psychometric Equivalence of Paper-and-Pencil and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Modes of Administration for the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30
Author:
Lundy, John Jason
Issue Date:
2008
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Electronic data capture technologies, such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems, are emerging as important alternatives for collecting self-reported data. The purpose of this research was to assess the measurement equivalence between the original paper-based versions and the adapted interactive voice response (IVR) versions of the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30. Furthermore, we examined the test-retest reliability of two consecutive administrations of the IVR versions of the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30. The comparison of the paper and IVR versions of the EQ-5D was conducted utilizing a crossover design with subjects randomly assigned to one of two assessment orders: 1) paper then IVR or 2) IVR then paper. A convenience sample of in-treatment outpatient cancer clinic patients (n=139) were asked to complete each assessment two days apart. For the test-retest component, outpatient cancer clinic patients (n=127) were asked to complete the IVR-based EQ-5D twice, two days apart. The analyses tested for mean differences (paired t-test) and test-retest reliability (ICC).In the crossover analysis, ten of the fifteen mean differences analyzed for the scales and items of the QLQ-C30 were within the equivalence interval set a priori. The ICCs for the scales and items of the QLQ-C30 ranged from 0.698 to 0.899. Two of the items, insomnia and appetite loss, did not meet our threshold of being statistically different from an ICC of 0.70. The EQ-5D index score means were equivalent between paper and IVR, however the EQ VAS score differences were not wholly contained in the equivalence interval. The ICCs were above 0.890 for the index and the EQ VAS. In the test-retest analysis, the ICCs for the nine multi-item scales for the QLQ-C30 were all above 0.69, ranging from 0.698 to 0.891. Ten of the fifteen mean differences analyzed were within the equivalence interval set a priori. For the EQ-5D, the mean differences were wholly contained within the equivalence intervals for both the index and the EQ VAS and the ICCs were significantly different from 0.70. Overall, the IVR version of the questionnaires provided psychometrically equivalent results to those obtained on the original paper version and showed good stability over time.
Type:
text; Electronic Dissertation
Keywords:
ePRO; EQ-5D; Equivalence; IVR; Patient Reported Outcomes; QLQ-C30
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Pharmaceutical Sciences; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Coons, Stephen Joel
Committee Chair:
Coons, Stephen Joel

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.titleAssessing Psychometric Equivalence of Paper-and-Pencil and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Modes of Administration for the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30en_US
dc.creatorLundy, John Jasonen_US
dc.contributor.authorLundy, John Jasonen_US
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractElectronic data capture technologies, such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems, are emerging as important alternatives for collecting self-reported data. The purpose of this research was to assess the measurement equivalence between the original paper-based versions and the adapted interactive voice response (IVR) versions of the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30. Furthermore, we examined the test-retest reliability of two consecutive administrations of the IVR versions of the EQ-5D and the QLQ-C30. The comparison of the paper and IVR versions of the EQ-5D was conducted utilizing a crossover design with subjects randomly assigned to one of two assessment orders: 1) paper then IVR or 2) IVR then paper. A convenience sample of in-treatment outpatient cancer clinic patients (n=139) were asked to complete each assessment two days apart. For the test-retest component, outpatient cancer clinic patients (n=127) were asked to complete the IVR-based EQ-5D twice, two days apart. The analyses tested for mean differences (paired t-test) and test-retest reliability (ICC).In the crossover analysis, ten of the fifteen mean differences analyzed for the scales and items of the QLQ-C30 were within the equivalence interval set a priori. The ICCs for the scales and items of the QLQ-C30 ranged from 0.698 to 0.899. Two of the items, insomnia and appetite loss, did not meet our threshold of being statistically different from an ICC of 0.70. The EQ-5D index score means were equivalent between paper and IVR, however the EQ VAS score differences were not wholly contained in the equivalence interval. The ICCs were above 0.890 for the index and the EQ VAS. In the test-retest analysis, the ICCs for the nine multi-item scales for the QLQ-C30 were all above 0.69, ranging from 0.698 to 0.891. Ten of the fifteen mean differences analyzed were within the equivalence interval set a priori. For the EQ-5D, the mean differences were wholly contained within the equivalence intervals for both the index and the EQ VAS and the ICCs were significantly different from 0.70. Overall, the IVR version of the questionnaires provided psychometrically equivalent results to those obtained on the original paper version and showed good stability over time.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeElectronic Dissertationen_US
dc.subjectePROen_US
dc.subjectEQ-5Den_US
dc.subjectEquivalenceen_US
dc.subjectIVRen_US
dc.subjectPatient Reported Outcomesen_US
dc.subjectQLQ-C30en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePharmaceutical Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorCoons, Stephen Joelen_US
dc.contributor.chairCoons, Stephen Joelen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberSlack, Marion K.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberBootman, J. Lyleen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberVogel, Ronald J.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest10040en_US
dc.identifier.oclc659749982en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.