Document Detail

Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  18380645     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs; self-report assessments) are increasingly important in evaluating medical care and treatment efficacy. Electronic administration of PROs via computer is becoming widespread. This article reviews the literature addressing whether computer-administered tests are equivalent to their paper-and-pencil forms. METHODS: Meta-analysis was used to synthesize 65 studies that directly assessed the equivalence of computer versus paper versions of PROs used in clinical trials. A total of 46 unique studies, evaluating 278 scales, provided sufficient detail to allow quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Among 233 direct comparisons, the average mean difference between modes averaged 0.2% of the scale range (e.g., 0.02 points on a 10-point scale), and 93% were within +/-5% of the scale range. Among 207 correlation coefficients between paper and computer instruments (typically intraclass correlation coefficients), the average weighted correlation was 0.90; 94% of correlations were at least 0.75. Because the cross-mode correlation (paper vs. computer) is also a test-retest correlation, with potential variation because of retest, we compared it to the within-mode (paper vs. paper) test-retest correlation. In four comparisons that evaluated both, the average cross-mode paper-to-computer correlation was almost identical to the within-mode correlation for readministration of a paper measure (0.88 vs. 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Extensive evidence indicates that paper- and computer-administered PROs are equivalent.
Chad J Gwaltney; Alan L Shields; Saul Shiffman
Related Documents :
15718115 - Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a bayesian analysis of a clini...
10539985 - Measuring perceived barriers to condom use: psychometric evaluation of the condom barri...
20391535 - A robust method for large-scale multiple hypotheses testing.
11162335 - Development and initial validation of the effort sense rating scale (esrs): a self-perc...
22816265 - Quantitative determination of prednisone in tablets by infrared attenuated total reflec...
17060215 - Imputation strategies for blood pressure data nonignorably missing due to medication use.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Meta-Analysis    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research     Volume:  11     ISSN:  1524-4733     ISO Abbreviation:  Value Health     Publication Date:    2008 Mar-Apr
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2008-04-02     Completed Date:  2008-04-16     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100883818     Medline TA:  Value Health     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  322-33     Citation Subset:  IM    
Brown University, Providence, RI, USA, and PRO Consulting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Computers, Handheld
Data Collection / methods*
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) / methods*
Patient Satisfaction*
Statistics as Topic

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Migraine frequency and health utilities: findings from a multisite survey.
Next Document:  Adoption of pharmaceutical innovation and the growth of drug expenditure in Taiwan: is it cost effec...