Response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data: a qualitative study.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03749-2
Øyvind Grindheim, Andrew McAleavey, Valentina Iversen, Christian Moltu, Kristin Tømmervik, Hege Govasmark, Heidi Brattland
{"title":"Response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data: a qualitative study.","authors":"Øyvind Grindheim, Andrew McAleavey, Valentina Iversen, Christian Moltu, Kristin Tømmervik, Hege Govasmark, Heidi Brattland","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03749-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify factors that influence response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data. Secondly, due to the lack of integrative and explanatory models in this area, to develop a model of patients' response processes that can guide what to look for when considering validity evidence and interpreting scores on individual items.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (n = 13) were recruited from a specialized substance use disorder treatment clinic and interviewed while responding to items from a clinical feedback system implemented for routine outcome monitoring in that setting. The interview approach was based on cognitive interviewing. Data collection and analysis were inspired by a grounded theory approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified several variables that influenced the participants' response processes. The variables were organized into five categories: context-related variables; item-related variables; response base variables; reasoning strategies; and response selection strategies. We also found that the participants' responses for many items were affected by different aspects of the response process in ways that are relevant to interpretation but not necessarily discernible from the numerical scores alone, and we developed response categories to capture this.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that patients providing quantitative self-report data encounter conditions in the response process that challenge and influence their ability to convey meaning and accuracy. This results in responses that for many of the items reflect messages important for interpretation and follow-up, even if it does not appear from the numerical scores alone. The proposed model may be a useful tool when developing items, assessing validity, and interpreting responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03749-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify factors that influence response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data. Secondly, due to the lack of integrative and explanatory models in this area, to develop a model of patients' response processes that can guide what to look for when considering validity evidence and interpreting scores on individual items.

Methods: Participants (n = 13) were recruited from a specialized substance use disorder treatment clinic and interviewed while responding to items from a clinical feedback system implemented for routine outcome monitoring in that setting. The interview approach was based on cognitive interviewing. Data collection and analysis were inspired by a grounded theory approach.

Results: We identified several variables that influenced the participants' response processes. The variables were organized into five categories: context-related variables; item-related variables; response base variables; reasoning strategies; and response selection strategies. We also found that the participants' responses for many items were affected by different aspects of the response process in ways that are relevant to interpretation but not necessarily discernible from the numerical scores alone, and we developed response categories to capture this.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that patients providing quantitative self-report data encounter conditions in the response process that challenge and influence their ability to convey meaning and accuracy. This results in responses that for many of the items reflect messages important for interpretation and follow-up, even if it does not appear from the numerical scores alone. The proposed model may be a useful tool when developing items, assessing validity, and interpreting responses.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者提供定量自我报告数据的响应过程:一项定性研究。
目的确定影响提供定量自我报告数据的患者反应过程的因素。其次,由于在这一领域缺乏综合解释模型,因此建立一个患者反应过程模型,以指导在考虑有效性证据和解释单个项目得分时应注意的事项:从一家专门的药物使用障碍治疗诊所招募了参与者(n = 13),在对该诊所为常规结果监测而实施的临床反馈系统中的项目进行回答时对其进行了访谈。访谈方法以认知访谈为基础。数据收集和分析受基础理论方法的启发:我们发现了影响参与者回答过程的几个变量。这些变量被分为五类:与情境相关的变量、与项目相关的变量、反应基础变量、推理策略和反应选择策略。我们还发现,参与者对许多项目的回答都受到了回答过程中不同方面的影响,这些影响与解释相关,但不一定能从数字分数中看出来:研究结果表明,提供定量自我报告数据的患者在回答过程中会遇到一些情况,这些情况会挑战和影响他们表达意义和准确性的能力。这导致许多项目的回答都反映了对解释和后续治疗很重要的信息,即使仅从数字分数中看不出来。在开发项目、评估有效性和解释回答时,建议的模型可能是一个有用的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D The effect of social care nurses on health related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: A non-randomized, multicenter, controlled trial The impact of demographic change on value set validity and obsolescence The performance relationship between the EQ-5D-5L composite “Anxiety/Depression” dimension and anxiety and depression symptoms in a large, general population sample
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1