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.
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.