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
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2014

01-09-2014

Evaluation properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 satisfaction with care questionnaire according to classical and item response theory analyses

Auteurs: M. Panouillères, A. Anota, T. V. Nguyen, A. Brédart, J. F. Bosset, A. Monnier, M. Mercier, J. B. Hardouin

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2014

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 present study investigates the properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire, which evaluates the outpatients’ satisfaction with care in oncology using classical analysis (CTT) and item response theory (IRT).

Methods

This cross-sectional multicenter study includes 692 patients who completed the questionnaire at the end of their ambulatory treatment. CTT analyses tested the main psychometric properties (convergent and divergent validity, and internal consistency). IRT analyses were conducted separately for each OUT-PATSAT35 domain (the doctors, the nurses or the radiation therapists and the services/organization) by models from the Rasch family. We examined the fit of the data to the model expectations and tested whether the model assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity and local independence were respected.

Results

A total of 605 (87.4 %) respondents were analyzed with a mean age of 64 years (range 29–88). Internal consistency for all scales separately and for the three main domains was good (Cronbach’s α 0.74–0.98). IRT analyses were performed with the partial credit model. No disordered thresholds of polytomous items were found. Each domain showed high reliability but fitted poorly to the Rasch models. Three items in particular, the item about “promptness” in the doctors’ domain and the items about “accessibility” and “environment” in the services/organization domain, presented the highest default of fit. A correct fit of the Rasch model can be obtained by dropping these items. Most of the local dependence concerned items about “information provided” in each domain. A major deviation of unidimensionality was found in the nurses’ domain.

Conclusions

CTT showed good psychometric properties of the OUT-PATSAT35. However, the Rasch analysis revealed some misfitting and redundant items. Taking the above problems into consideration, it could be interesting to refine the questionnaire in a future study.
vorige artikel Psychometric properties of the French Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)
volgende artikel Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Bulgarian version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Burke, L. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 1.CrossRef
2.
Rubin, H. R., Gandek, B., Rogers, W. H., Kosinski, M., McHorney, C. A., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1993). Patients’ ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA, 270(7), 835–840.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Borras, J. M., Sanchez-Hernandez, A., Navarro, M., Martinez, M., Mendez, E., Ponton, J. L., et al. (2001). Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 322(7290), 826.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Bredart, A., Bottomley, A., Blazeby, J. M., Conroy, T., Coens, C., D’Haese, S., et al. (2005). An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). European Journal of Cancer, 41(14), 2120–2131.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Poinsot, R., Altmeyer, A., Conroy, T., Savignoni, A., Asselain, B., Leonard, I., et al. (2006). Multisite validation study of questionnaire assessing out-patient satisfaction with care questionnaire in ambulatory chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment. Bulletin du Cancer, 93(3), 315–327.PubMed
6.
Arraras, J. I., Illarramendi, J. J., Viudez, A., Lecumberri, M. J., de la Cruz, S., Hernandez, B., et al. (2012). The cancer outpatient satisfaction with care questionnaire for chemotherapy, OUT-PATSAT35 CT: A validation study for Spanish patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(12), 3269–3278.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Arraras, J. I., Rico, M., Vila, M., Chicata, V., Asin, G., Martinez, M., et al. (2010). The EORTC cancer outpatient satisfaction with care questionnaire in ambulatory radiotherapy: EORTC OUT-PATSAT35 RT. Validation study for Spanish patients. Psychooncology, 19(6), 657–664.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II28–II42.PubMedCentralPubMed
9.
Nguyen, T. V., Bosset, J. F., Monnier, A., Fournier, J., Perrin, V., Baumann, C., et al. (2011). Determinants of patient satisfaction in ambulatory oncology: A cross sectional study based on the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire. BMC Cancer, 11, 526.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
Sitzia, J., & Wood, N. (1998). Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(4), 311–317.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nunnally, J. C. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRef
13.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286.CrossRef
14.
De Ayala, R. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Press.
15.
Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 5–18.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Rasch, G. (1993). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. ERIC.
17.
Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
18.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.CrossRef
19.
Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.CrossRef
20.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573.CrossRef
21.
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 913–933.PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Ramp, M., Khan, F., Misajon, R. A., & Pallant, J. F. (2009). Rasch analysis of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale MSIS-29. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 7, 58.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
25.
Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (Eds.). (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills: Sage.
26.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2013). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Psychology Press.
27.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.PubMed
28.
Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 66–78.PubMed
30.
Karabatsos, G. (2000). A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(2), 152–176.PubMed
31.
Linacre, J., & Wright, B. (1994). Chi square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(2), 350.
32.
Linacre, J. M. (2003). Rasch power analysis: Size vs. significance: Standardized chi square fit statistic. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17, 918.
33.
Sheridan, B. (1998). RUMM item analysis package: Rasch unidimensional measurement model. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(4), 599.
34.
Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P. J., & Velikova, G. (2007). A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 19.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Smith, E. V., Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.PubMed
36.
Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N., Blazeby, J., Brandberg, Y., de Graeff, A., et al. (2006). Item response theory was used to shorten EORTC QLQ-C30 scales for use in palliative care. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(1), 36–44.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Pallant, J. F., Miller, R. L., & Tennant, A. (2006). Evaluation of the Edinburgh Post Natal Depression Scale using Rasch analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 6, 28.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Smith, A. B., Wright, E. P., Rush, R., Stark, D. P., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. J. (2006). Rasch analysis of the dimensional structure of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychooncology, 15(9), 817–827.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Evaluation properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 satisfaction with care questionnaire according to classical and item response theory analyses
Auteurs
M. Panouillères
A. Anota
T. V. Nguyen
A. Brédart
J. F. Bosset
A. Monnier
M. Mercier
J. B. Hardouin
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0658-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2014

Quality of Life Research 7/2014 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

On the associations between physical activity and quality of life: findings from an Australian nationally representative panel survey

Review

Biological pathways, candidate genes, and molecular markers associated with quality-of-life domains: an update

OriginalPaper

Measurement properties of the Client-centered Care Questionnaire (CCCQ): factor structure, reliability and validity of a questionnaire to assess self-reported client-centeredness of home care services in a population of frail, older people

Erratum

Erratum to: The relationship between negative life events, psychological distress and life satisfaction: a population-based study

Brief Communication

Comparing PROMIS computer-adaptive tests to the Brief Symptom Inventory in patients with prostate cancer

OriginalPaper

Differential item functioning in the Observer Scale of the POSAS for different scar types