Font Size: a A A

Measurement Bias with Mixed-mode Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) Survey Administration: Measurement Equivalence, Cost, and Data Quality

Posted on:2013-02-17Degree:Ph.DType:Dissertation
University:University of California, San FranciscoCandidate:Broering, Jeanette MarieFull Text:PDF
GTID:1459390008475345Subject:Nursing
Abstract/Summary:
Background: Measurement with mixed-mode administration (i.e., paper-mode versus web-mode) of patient-reported outcome (PRO) health surveys may vary by psychometric measurement equivalence (ME), differential response rates, costs, and data quality.;Purpose: Three data-based papers evaluated ME, cost, and data quality when a mixed-mode approach for self-administration was used.;Methods: Data were derived from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) study, a multi-institutional United States based longitudinal prostate cancer registry. ME study used a randomized cross-over design of 209 participants. Cost and data quality analyses used a cross-sectional time frame of 5,008 participants. The Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the UCLA-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI) were examined.;Results: ME study, participants were White (97%), college educated (66%), reported an annual income > ;Discussion: The use of a mixed-mode approach found support for ME; costs to administer were lower for paper-mode but web-mode had higher accuracy; and significant but small differences in data quality. Findings suggest that mixed-mode administration did not introduce significant measurement bias but allowed for participation by more diverse participants (e.g., older, poorer health, non-Caucasian).
Keywords/Search Tags:Measurement, Administration, Mixed-mode, Data quality, Cost, Participants
Related items