Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 229-237

  Lundy, J Jason ^a   Coons, Stephen Joel ^a   Aaronson, Neil K ^b  

^a Patient Reported Outcome Consortium   (United States)

^b NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

EORTC QLQ C30; Interactive voice response; Measurement equivalence; Patient reported outcomes

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HEALTH; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPER; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARIZONA; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAPER; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE; WORLD HEALTH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84895062962     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0454-1     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. US Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
2. Lipscomb, J., Reeve, B. B., Clauser, S. B., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcome assessment in cancer trials: Taking stock, moving forward. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 5133-5140. (Pubitemid 350232295)
3. Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Zee, B., et al. (1997). Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 6, 103-108. (Pubitemid 27207274)
4. Bottomley, A., & Aaronson, N. K. (2007). International perspective on health-related quality of life research in cancer clinical trials: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 5082-5086. (Pubitemid 350232287)
5. National Cancer Institute (2002). A manual for participants in clinical trials of investigational agents sponsored by DCTD, NCI. Available at: http://ctep.cancer.gov/investigatorResources/docs/hndbk.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2011.
6. Bloom, D. E. (1998). Technology, experimentation, and the quality of survey data. Science, 280, 847-848. (Pubitemid 28215585)
7. Taenzer, P. A., Speca, M., Atkinson, M. J., et al. (1997). Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Practice, 5, 168-175. (Pubitemid 27224444)
8. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
9. Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 998-1007. (Pubitemid 29109334)
10. Bushnell, D. M., Reilly, M. C., et al. (2006). Validation of electronic data capture of the irritable bowel syndrome - Quality of life measure, the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for irritable bowel syndrome and the EuroQol. Value Health, 9, 98-105. (Pubitemid 44044742)
11. Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., et al. (2002). Patient noncompliance with paper diaries. BMJ, 324, 1193-1194.
12. Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., 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 Health, 12(4), 419-429.
13. Crow, J. T. (1986). Receptive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. Modern Languages Journal, 70, 242-250.
14. Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317.
15. Abu-Hasaballah, K., James, A., & Aseltine, R. H, Jr. (2007). Lessons and pitfalls of interactive voice response in medical research. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 28, 593-602. (Pubitemid 47212845)
16. Corkrey, R., & Parkinson, L. (2002). Interactive voice response: review of studies 1989-2000. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 34(3), 342-353.
17. Alemi, F., Stephens, R., Parran, T., et al. (1994). Automated monitoring of outcomes: Application to the treatment of drug abuse. Medical Decision Making, 14, 180-187. (Pubitemid 24116547)
18. Agel, J., Greist, J. H., Rockwood, T., et al. (2001). Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics, 24, 1155-1157. (Pubitemid 34023937)
19. Juniper, E. F., Scatz, M., Juniper, B. A., & Zeiger, R. (2008). Evaluation of 2 interactive voice-response telephone versions of health-related quality-of-life questionnaires. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 122, 654-655.
20. Lauritsen, K., Degl' Innocenti, A., Hendel, L., Praest, J., Lytje, M. F., Clemmensen-Rotne, K., et al. (2004). Symptom recording in a randomized clinical trial: Paper diaries vs. electronic or telephone data capture. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25, 585-597. (Pubitemid 39592863)
21. Weiler, K., Christ, A. M., Woodworth, G. G., Weiler, R. L., & Weiler, J. M. (2004). Quality of patient-reported outcome data captured using paper and interactive voice response diaries in an allergic rhinitis study: Is electronic data capture really better? Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 92, 335-339. (Pubitemid 38380790)
22. Wilson, S. J., Rich, A. S., Rich, N. C., Potokar, J., & Nutt, D. J. (2004). Evaluation of actigraphy and automated telephoned questionnaires to assess hypnotic effects in insomnia. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19, 77-84. (Pubitemid 38316765)
23. Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365-376.
24. Bjordal, K., de Graeff, A., Fayers, P. M., Hammerlind, E., et al. (2000). A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. European Journal of Cancer, 36, 1796-1807. (Pubitemid 30639500)
25. Gundy, C.M., Aaronson, N.K. (2010). Effects of mode of administration (MOA) on the measurement properties of the EORTC QLQ-C30: A randomized study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 8:35. Available at: http://www.hqlo.com/ content/8/1/35.
26. Lundy, J. J., & Coons, S. J. (2011). Measurement equivalence of interactive voice response and paper versions of the EQ-5D in a cancer patient sample. Value Health, 14, 867-871.
27. Hills, M., & Armitage, P. (1979). The two period cross-over clinical trial. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 8, 7-20. (Pubitemid 9234327)
28. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
29. McGraw, K.O., Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46 (Correction: Vol. 1, No. 4, 390). (Pubitemid 126421252)
30. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.