Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): A randomised crossover trial in cancer patients

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1435-1440

  Ashley, Laura ^a   Keding, Ada ^a   Brown, Julia ^a   Velikova, Galina ^a   Wright, Penny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer; Electronic questionnaire; Oncology; Quality of life; Score equivalence; Social Difficulties Inventory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PAPER; PERSONALITY TEST; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF CARE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PAPER; PERSONALITY INVENTORY; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF CARE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84885189168     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0242-3     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Wright, E. P.; Kiely, M. A.; Lynch, P.; Cull, A.; & Selby, P. J. (2002). Social problems in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 87(10), 1099-1104. (Pubitemid 35418104)
2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guidance on cancer services: Improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. Accessed January 2, 2012 from http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10893/28816/ 28816.pdf.
3. Wright, E. P.; Kiely, M.; Johnston, C.; Smith, A. B.; Cull, A.; & Selby, P. J. (2005). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 373-386. (Pubitemid 40576387)
4. Wright, P.; Smith, A.; Roberts, K.; Selby, P.; & Velikova, G. (2007). Screening for social difficulties in cancer patients: Clinical utility of the Social Difficulties Inventory. British Journal of Cancer, 97(8), 1063-1070. (Pubitemid 47587018)
5. Wright, P.; Marshall, L.; Smith, A. B.; Velikova, G.; & Selby, P. (2008). Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI). European Journal of Cancer, 44(11), 1529-1535.
6. Wright, P.; Smith, A. B.; Keding, A.; & Velikova, G. (2011). The social difficulties inventory (SDI): Development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff. Psycho-Oncology, 20(1), 36-43.
7. Hanif, N.; Dharni, N.; Smith, A.; Chattoo, S.; Velikova, G.; Bradley, C.; et al. (2011). Translation of the social difficulties inventory (SDI-21) into three south Asian languages and preliminary evaluation of SDI-21(Urdu). Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 431-438.
8. Simon, A. E.; & Wardle, J. (2008). Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial wellbeing in cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 44(4), 572-578.
9. Stevinson, C.; Lydon, A.; & Amir, Z. (2011). Cancer support group participation in the United Kingdom: A national survey. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(5), 675-683.
10. Department of Health, Macmillan Cancer Support and NHS Improvement. (2010). National cancer survivorship initiative vision. Accessed January 2, 2012 from http://www.ncsi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/NCSI-Vision-Document.pdf.
11. Greenlaw, C.; & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: Testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review, 33(5), 464-480.
12. Gwaltney, C. J.; Shields, A. L.; & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322-333. (Pubitemid 351473608)
13. Maddams, J.; Brewster, D.; Gavin, A.; Steward, J.; Elliott, J.; Utley, M.; et al. (2009). Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: Estimates for 2008. British Journal of Cancer, 101(3), 541-547.
14. Office for National Statistics. (2010). Internet access: Households and individuals, 2010. Accessed January 2, 2012 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ rdit2/internet-access - households-and-individuals/2010/index.html.
15. Coons, S. J.; Gwaltney, C. J.; Hays, R. D.; Lundy, J. J.; Sloan, J. A.; Revicki, D. A.; et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419-429.
16. Cook, A. J.; Roberts, D. A.; Henderson, M. D.; Van Winkle, L. C.; Chastain, D. C.; & Hamill-Ruth, R. J. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110(1-2), 310-317. (Pubitemid 38953296)
17. Bishop, F. L.; Lewis, G.; Harris, S.; McKay, N.; Prentice, P.; Thiel, H.; et al. (2010). A within-subjects trial to test the equivalence of online and paper outcome measures: The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11, 113.
18. Velikova, G.; Wright, E. P.; Smith, A. B.; Cull, A.; Gould, A.; Forman, D.; et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998-1007. (Pubitemid 29109334)
19. Pocock, S. J. (1988). Clinical trials: A practical approach. New York: Wiley.
20. Wu, R. C.; Thorpe, K.; Ross, H.; Micevski, V.; Marquez, C.; & Straus, S. E. (2009). Comparing administration of questionnaires via the internet to pen-and-paper in patients with heart failure: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11, e3.
21. The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Accessed February 7, 2012 from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010.