Development and assessment of a verbal response scale for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in a low-literacy, non-western population | mijn-bsl Skip to main content

Mijn bibliotheek

Shop

Nieuws
Boeken
Tijdschriften
E-learning
Web-tv
Video
Audio

Tips voor Mijn BSL

UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 2/2021

23-09-2020

Development and assessment of a verbal response scale for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in a low-literacy, non-western population

Auteurs: Anupa Pathak, Saurab Sharma, Allen W. Heinemann, Paul W. Stratford, Daniel Cury Ribeiro, J. Haxby Abbott

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a routinely used measure of physical function with a 0–10 response scale. We aimed to develop verbal response options for the PSFS, pre-test it for use in a multilingual, low-literacy country— Nepal, and compare preference and error rates between numeric and verbal scale. We hypothesized that a verbal scale would be preferred by respondents and yield fewer errors.

Method

We interviewed 42 individuals with musculoskeletal, neurological, and cardiopulmonary conditions to understand how people describe varying levels of physical ability. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, and through consensus, we developed two sets of verbal responses for the PSFS. Next, we pre-tested the scales on an additional 119 respondents following which participants were asked to specify their preferred scale. Error rates were analyzed retrospectively using pre-specified criteria.

Results

Participants described their ability in terms of the quality (95%) and the quantity of task performance (88%). Although the verbal scales were preferred over the numeric scale (50% versus 12%), there was no significant difference in error rates between numeric (34%) and verbal scales (32% and 36%). Higher error rates were associated with greater age, fewer years of education, and inexperience with numeric scales.

Conclusion

Despite a higher preference for verbal scale, 1 out of 3 patients made errors in using the PSFS, even with an interview format. The error rates were higher among participants with low literacy. The findings raise questions about the utility of PROMs in countries with low literacy rates.
vorige artikel Translation and validation of the Korean version of the Sarcopenia Quality of Life (SarQoL-K®) questionnaire and applicability with the SARC-F screening tool
volgende artikel Validation of the Hungarian version of the CarerQol instrument in informal caregivers: results from a cross-sectional survey among the general population in Hungary
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL: Measurement in medicine: a practical guide: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
2.
Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 22(8), 1889–1905. CrossRef
3.
Aiyegbusi, O. L., Kyte, D., Cockwell, P., Anderson, N., & Calvert, M. (2017). A patient-centred approach to measuring quality in kidney care: patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension, 26(6), 442–449. PubMedCrossRef
4.
Dudgeon, D. (2018). The Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Quality of and Access to Palliative Care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 21(S1), S76–S80. PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bottomley, A., Reijneveld, J. C., Koller, M., Flechtner, H., Tomaszewski, K. A., Greimel, E., et al. (2019). Current state of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research. European Journal of Cancer, 121, 55–63. PubMedCrossRef
6.
Anker, S. D., Agewall, S., Borggrefe, M., Calvert, M., Jaime Caro, J., Cowie, M. R., et al. (2014). The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. European Heart Journal, 35(30), 2001–2009. PubMedCrossRef
7.
Maher, C., Latimer, J., & Costa, L. (2007). The relevance of cross-cultural adaptation and clinimetrics for physical therapy instruments. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 11, 245–252. CrossRef
8.
Kandula, N. R., Lauderdale, D. S., & Baker, D. W. (2007). Differences in self-reported health among Asians, Latinos, and non-Hispanic whites: the role of language and nativity. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(3), 191–198. PubMedCrossRef
9.
Summers, R., Wang, S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Said, Z. (2019). Comparing Likert Scale Functionality Across Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Groups in Science Education Research: an Illustration Using Qatari Students’ Responses to an Attitude Toward Science Survey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 885–903. CrossRef
10.
Hahn, E. A., & Cella, D. (2003). Health outcomes assessment in vulnerable populations: Measurement challenges and recommendations. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 SUPPL. 2), S35–S42. PubMedCrossRef
11.
Samuel, A. J., & Kanimozhi, D. (2019). Outcome measures used in patient with knee osteoarthritis: With special importance on functional outcome measures. International Journal Health Science (Qassim), 13(1), 52–60.
12.
Klokkerud, M., Dagfinrud, H., Uhlig, T., Dager, T. N., Furunes, K. A., Klokkeide, Å., et al. (2018). Developing and testing a consensus-based core set of outcome measures for rehabilitation in musculoskeletal diseases. Scandinavian Journal Of Rheumatology, 47(3), 225–234. PubMedCrossRef
13.
Agans, R. P., Deeb-Sossa, N., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (2006). Mexican Immigrants and the Use of Cognitive Assessment Techniques in Questionnaire Development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 209–230. CrossRef
14.
Amery, R. (2017). Recognising the communication gap in Indigenous health care. Medical Journal of Australia, 207(1), 13–15. CrossRef
15.
Jull, J., & Giles, A. (2015). Minwaashin Lodge TAWsSC, Boyer Y, Stacey D: Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15, 1–1. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Stapleton, H., Murphy, R., & Kildea, S. (2013). Lost in translation: staff and interpreters' experiences of the edinburgh postnatal depression scale with women from refugee backgrounds. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34(9), 648–657. PubMedCrossRef
17.
Stasiak, K., Parkin, A., Seymour, F., Lambie, I., Crengle, S., Pasene-Mizziebo, E., et al. (2012). Measuring outcome in child and adolescent mental health services: Consumers’ views of measures. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 18(4), 519–535. PubMedCrossRef
18.
Nakigudde, J., Musisi, S., Ehnvall, A., Airaksinen, E., & Agren, H. (2009). Adaptation of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in a Ugandan setting. Afr Health Sci, 9(1), S35–S41. PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Cremers, A. H. M., Welbie, M., Kranenborg, K., & Wittink, H. (2017). Deriving guidelines for designing interactive questionnaires for low-literate persons: development of a health assessment questionnaire. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(1), 161–172. CrossRef
20.
El-Daly, I., Ibraheim, H., Rajakulendran, K., Culpan, P., & Bates, P. (2016). Are Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics Easily Read by Patients? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474(1), 246–255. PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Dambi, J. M., Jelsma, J., Mambo, T., & Chiwaridzo, M. (2017). Use of patient-reported outcomes in low-resource settings — lessons from the development and validation of the Zimbabwean Caregiver Burden Scale. European Journal of Physiotherapy, 19(sup1), 47–50. CrossRef
23.
Welbie, M., Wittink, H., Westerman, M. J., Topper, I., Snoei, J., & Devillé, W. L. (2018). Using Plain Language and Adding Communication Technology to an Existing Health-Related Questionnaire to Help Generate Accurate Information: Qualitative Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(4), e140–e140. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Fleischmann, M., & Vaughan, B. (2018). The challenges and opportunities of using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 28, 56–61. CrossRef
25.
D'Aprano, A., Silburn, S., Johnston, V., Robinson, G., Oberklaid, F., & Squires, J. (2016). Adaptation of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire for Remote Aboriginal Australia. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 613–625. PubMedCrossRef
26.
Stewart, A. L., Thrasher, A. D., Goldberg, J., & Shea, J. A. (2012). A framework for understanding modifications to measures for diverse populations. J Aging Health, 24(6), 992–1017. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Jahagirdar, D., Kroll, T., Ritchie, K., & Wyke, S. (2013). Patient-reported outcome measures for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease : the exclusion of people with low literacy skills and learning disabilities. Patient, 6(1), 11–21. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
29.
30.
31.
Sharma S, Jensen MP: Cross-cultural adaptations of patient-reported outcome measures can be very useful. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine 2019.
32.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. PubMedCrossRef
33.
Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation & The Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232. CrossRef
34.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Baumgartner, H. (2013). The Effect of Familiarity with the Response Category Labels on Item Response to Likert Scales. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 368–381. CrossRef
35.
Flaskerud, J. H. (2012). Cultural Bias and Likert-Type Scales Revisited. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(2), 130–132. PubMedCrossRef
36.
Beckstead, J. W. (2014). On measurements and their quality Paper 4 Verbal anchors and the number of response options in rating scales. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(5), 807–814. PubMedCrossRef
37.
Pathak, A., Sharma, S., & Jensen, M. P. (2018). The utility and validity of pain intensity rating scales for use in developing countries. Pain Rep, 3(5), e672. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Chang, E. M., Gillespie, E. F., & Shaverdian, N. (2019). Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: factors affecting patients' responses and impact on data quality. Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 10, 171–186. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use: Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.
40.
Herr, K. A., Spratt, K., Mobily, P. R., & Richardson, G. (2004). Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clinical Journal of Pain, 20(4), 207–219. CrossRef
41.
Mandysová P, Kadlečková Z: The performance of three pain intensity scales and their preferences among Czech women with acute postoperative pain. 2014.
42.
Zhou, Y., Petpichetchian, W., & Kitrungrote, L. (2011). Psychometric properties of pain intensity scales comparing among postoperative adult patients, elderly patients without and with mild cognitive impairment in China. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(4), 449–457. PubMedCrossRef
43.
Pathak, A., Sharma, S., & Jensen, M. P. (2018). The utility and validity of pain intensity rating scales for use in developing countries. Pain Reports, 3(5), e672. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Stratford, P., Gill, C., Westaway, M., & Binkley, J. (1995). Assessing Disability and Change on Individual Patients: A Report of a Patient Specific Measure. Physiotherapy Canada, 47(4), 258–263. CrossRef
45.
Horn, K. K., Jennings, S., Richardson, G., Vliet, D. V., Hefford, C., & Abbott, J. H. (2012). The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 42(1), 30–42. CrossRef
46.
Sharma, S., Palanchoke, J., & Abbott, J. H. (2018). Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Nepali Translation of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 48(8), 659–664. CrossRef
47.
Yalcinkaya, G., & Kara, B. (2017). Arda M AB1201-HPR The validity and test-retest reliability of the turkish patient specific functional scale in chronic neck pain patients a preliminary report. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 76(2), 1532–1532.
48.
Lehtola, V., Kaksonen, A., Luomajoki, H., Leinonen, V., Gibbons, S., & Airaksinen, O. (2013). Content validity and responsiveness of a Finnish version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. European Journal of Physiotherapy, 15(3), 134–138. CrossRef
49.
Abbott, J. H., & Schmitt, J. S. (2014). The Patient-Specific Functional Scale was valid for group-level change comparisons and between-group discrimination. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(6), 681–688. PubMedCrossRef
50.
O'Shea, S. D., Taylor, N. F., & Paratz, J. D. (2005). Measuring changes in activity limitation and participation restriction in people with COPD. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 12(6), 264–268. CrossRef
51.
Berghuis-Kelley, D., & Scherer, S. (2007). Research CornerOutcome Measures in Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy: Use of the Patient Specific Functional Scale. Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal, 18(3), 21–23. CrossRef
52.
Wittboldt, S., Cider, A., & Back, M. (2016). Reliability of two questionnaires on physical function in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs, 15(2), 142–149. PubMedCrossRef
53.
Siebers, A., Öberg, U., & Skargren, E. (2009). Improvement and impact of initial motor skill after intensive rehabilitation – CI-therapy in patients with chronic hemiplegia. A follow-up study. Advances in Physiotherapy, 8(4), 146–153. CrossRef
54.
Bohannon RW, Nair P, Green M: Feasibility and informativeness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale with patients with Parkinson’s disease. Physiotherapy theory and practice 2019.
55.
Statistics NCBo: Nepal - National Population & Housing Census 2011.
56.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2, 53–106.
57.
Zhou, Y. A. (2019). mixed methods model of scale development and validation analysis. Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 17(1), 38–47. CrossRef
58.
59.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., et al. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. PubMedCrossRef
60.
Perneger, T. V., Courvoisier, D. S., Hudelson, P. M., & Gayet-Ageron, A. (2015). Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Quality of life research, 24(1), 147–151. PubMedCrossRef
61.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Van Der Veer, K., Ommundsen, R., Hak, T., & Larsen, K. S. (2003). Meaning Shift of Items in Different Language Versions A Cross-National Validation Study of the Illegal Aliens Scale. Quality and Quantity, 37(2), 193–206. CrossRef
63.
Pool, J. J. M., Hiralal, S., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., van der Veer, K., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2009). The applicability of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for patients with sub-acute neck pain: a qualitative study. Quality and Quantity, 43(5), 773–780. CrossRef
64.
65.
Hansen, P., & Ombler, F. (2008). A new method for scoring additive multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15(3–4), 87–107. CrossRef
66.
Lavrakas PJ: Paired Comparison Technique. In: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2008.
67.
Chandra Y, Shang L: Inductive Coding. In: Qualitative Research Using R: A Systematic Approach. edn. Edited by Chandra Y, Shang L. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019: 91–106.
68.
Adedokun, O. A., & Burgess, W. D. (2012). Analysis of paired dichotomous data: A gentle introduction to the McNemar test in SPSS. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 125–131.
69.
Zalmay, P. (2017). de CWAC: How do medical students use and understand pain rating scales? Scand J Pain, 15, 68–72. PubMedCrossRef
70.
Yazici Sayin, Y., & Akyolcu, N. (2014). Comparison of pain scale preferences and pain intensity according to pain scales among Turkish Patients: a descriptive study. Pain Manag Nurs, 15(1), 156–164. PubMedCrossRef
71.
Li, L., Herr, K., & Chen, P. (2009). Postoperative pain assessment with three intensity scales in Chinese elders. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 41(3), 241–249. PubMedCrossRef
72.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Herr, K. (2007). Postoperative pain intensity assessment: a comparison of four scales in Chinese adults. Pain Med, 8(3), 223–234. PubMedCrossRef
73.
Herr, K., Spratt, K. F., Garand, L., & Li, L. (2007). Evaluation of the Iowa pain thermometer and other selected pain intensity scales in younger and older adult cohorts using controlled clinical pain: a preliminary study. Pain Med, 8(7), 585–600. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
74.
Amtmann, D., Liljenquist, K., Bamer, A., Bocell, F., Jensen, M., Wilson, R., et al. (2018). Measuring Pain Catastrophizing and Pain-Related Self-Efficacy: Expert Panels, Focus Groups, and Cognitive Interviews. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 11(1), 107–117. PubMedCrossRef
75.
Sharma, S., Pathak, A., Maharjan, R., Abbott, J. H., Correia, H., & Jensen, M. (2018). Psychometric properties of nepali versions of PROMIS short from measures of pain intensity, pain interference, pain behaviour, depressions, and sleep disturbance. The Journal of Pain, 19(3), S59.
76.
77.
Hoopman, R., Terwee, C. B., Muller, M. J., Öry, F. G., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Methodological challenges in quality of life research among Turkish and Moroccan ethnic minority cancer patients: translation, recruitment and ethical issues. Ethnicity and Health, 14(3), 237–253. PubMedCrossRef
78.
Chaves, F. F., Reis, I. A., & Pagano, A. S. (2017). Torres HdC: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form. Revista de saude publica, 51, 16. PubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Chachamovich, E., Fleck, M. P., & Power, M. (2009). Literacy affected ability to adequately discriminate among categories in multipoint Likert Scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(1), 37–46. PubMedCrossRef
80.
Fang, J., Fleck, M. P., Green, A., McVilly, K., Hao, Y., Tan, W., et al. (2011). The response scale for the intellectual disability module of the WHOQOL: 5-point or 3-point? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(6), 537–549. PubMedCrossRef
81.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81. PubMedCrossRef
82.
Gries, K., Berry, P., Harrington, M., Crescioni, M., Patel, M., Rudell, K., et al. (2018). Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 2(1), 41. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
83.
Vandenbosch, J., Van den Broucke, S., Vancorenland, S., Avalosse, H., Verniest, R., & Callens, M. (2016). Health literacy and the use of healthcare services in Belgium. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(10), 1032–1038. PubMedCrossRef
84.
Marcus, E. N. (2006). The Silent Epidemic — The Health Effects of Illiteracy. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(4), 339–341. CrossRef
85.
Cook, A., Roberts, D., Nelson, K., Clark, B. R., & Parker, B. E., Jr. (2018). Development of a pictorial scale for assessing functional interference with chronic pain: the Pictorial Pain Interference Questionnaire. Journal of Pain Research, 11, 1343–1354. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
86.
Sternberg, R. M., Nápoles, A. M., Gregorich, S., Paul, S., Lee, K. A., & Stewart, A. L. (2016). Development of the Stress of Immigration Survey: A Field Test Among Mexican Immigrant Women. Fam Community Health, 39(1), 40–52. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
87.
Ramos, S. R., Paintsil, E., Ofori-Atta, A., Kusah, J. T., Amissah, K. A., Alhassan, A., et al. (2020). Prototype Development, Usability, and Preference of a Culturally-relevant Pictorial Aid to Facilitate Comprehension of Likert-type Levels of Agreement in Caregivers of Children Living With HIV in Ghana. Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 38(1), 45–52. PubMedCrossRef
88.
Shea, J. A., Guerra, C. E., Weiner, J., Aguirre, A. C., Ravenell, K. L., & Asch, D. A. (2008). Adapting a patient satisfaction instrument for low literate and Spanish-speaking populations: Comparison of three formats. Patient Education and Counseling, 73(1), 132–140. PubMedCrossRef
89.
Hopkins D, King G: Improving Anchoring Vignettes: Designing Surveys to Correct Interpersonal Incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010:1–22.
90.
Halstead, P., Arbuckle, R., Marshall, C., Zimmerman, B., Bolton, K., & Gelotte, C. (2020). Development and Content Validity Testing of Patient-Reported Outcome Items for Children to Self-Assess Symptoms of the Common Cold. The Patient—Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 13(2), 235–250. PubMedCrossRef
91.
Hicks, C. L., von Baeyer, C. L., Spafford, P. A., van Korlaar, I., & Goodenough, B. (2001). The Faces Pain Scale-Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain, 93(2), 173–183. PubMedCrossRef
92.
Guyatt, G. H., Townsend, M., Berman, L. B., & Keller, J. L. (1987). A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis, 40(12), 1129–1133. PubMedCrossRef
93.
Carod-Artal, F. J., Ferreira Coral, L., Stieven Trizotto, D., & Menezes Moreira, C. (2009). Self- and proxy-report agreement on the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 40(10), 3308–3314. PubMedCrossRef
94.
Haley, K. L., Womack, J. L., Harmon, T. G., McCulloch, K. L., & Faldowski, R. A. (2019). Life activity choices by people with aphasia: repeated interviews and proxy agreement. Aphasiology, 33(6), 710–730. CrossRef
95.
Schulte, F., Wurz, A., Reynolds, K., Strother, D., & Dewey, D. (2016). Quality of life in survivors of pediatric cancer and their siblings: the consensus between parent-proxy and self-reports. Pediatric Blood and Cancer, 63(4), 677–683. PubMedCrossRef
96.
Griffiths, A. W., Smith, S. J., Martin, A., Meads, D., Kelley, R., & Surr, C. A. (2020). Exploring self-report and proxy-report quality-of-life measures for people living with dementia in care homes. Quality of Life Research, 29(2), 463–472. PubMedCrossRef
97.
Laura N: An Exploration of Proxy- and Self-Reported Adolescent Health in Low-Resource Settings. Survey Research Methods 2016, 10(2).
98.
Wurz, A., & Burnet, J. (2017). Evaluating Questionnaires Used to Assess Self-Reported Physical Activity and Psychosocial Outcomes Among Survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer: A Cognitive Interview Study. Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology, 6(3), 482–488. PubMedCrossRef
99.
Thoomes-de Graaf, M., Fernández-De-Las-Peñas, C., & Cleland, J. A. (2019). The content and construct validity of the modified patient specific functional scale (PSFS 20) in individuals with neck pain. J Man Manip Ther, 28(1), 49–59. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
100.
Stevens, A., Moser, A., Köke, A., van der Weijden, T., & Beurskens, A. (2016). The patient's perspective of the feasibility of a patient-specific instrument in physiotherapy goal setting: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence, 10, 425–434. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
Sharma, S., Palanchoke, J., Reed, D., & Haxby Abbott, J. (2017). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Nepali versions of numerical pain rating scale and global rating of change. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 15(1), 236. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
102.
Wright J, Moghaddam N, Dawson D: Cognitive Interviewing in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review of Methodological Processes. 2019.
103.
Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1263–1278. PubMedCrossRef
104.
Patrick DL, Guyatt GH, Acquadro C: Patient‐reported outcomes. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Version 510 [updated March 2011]. edn. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011: 531–545.
105.
Staniszewska, S., Haywood, K. L., Brett, J., & Tutton, L. (2012). Patient and Public Involvement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 5(2), 79–87. PubMedCrossRef
106.
Kosmidis, M. H., Zafiri, M., & Politimou, N. (2011). Literacy Versus Formal Schooling: Influence on Working Memory. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26(7), 575–582. PubMedCrossRef
107.
Matteson, S. M., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Using Multiple Interviewers in Qualitative Research Studies: The Influence of Ethic of Care Behaviors in Research Interview Settings. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(4), 659–674. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Development and assessment of a verbal response scale for the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in a low-literacy, non-western population
Auteurs
Anupa Pathak
Saurab Sharma
Allen W. Heinemann
Paul W. Stratford
Daniel Cury Ribeiro
J. Haxby Abbott
Publicatiedatum
23-09-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02640-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2021

Quality of Life Research 2/2021 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

A non-compensatory analysis of quality of life in breast cancer survivors using multivariate hidden Markov modeling

OriginalPaper

A randomised online experimental study to compare responses to brief and extended surveys of health-related quality of life and psychosocial outcomes among women with breast cancer

Review

Quality of life of cancer patients at palliative care units in developing countries: systematic review of the published literature

OriginalPaper

Quality of life more than 10 years after radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer—impact of time after treatment and prescription dose

OriginalPaper

A validation study of the CarerQol instrument in informal caregivers of people with dementia from eight European countries

OriginalPaper

Patient-reported outcomes in survivors of breast cancer one, three, and five years post-diagnosis: a cancer registry-based feasibility study