Inter-method reliability of paper surveys and computer assisted telephone interviews in a randomized controlled trial of yoga for low back pain

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Cerrada, Christian J ^a,e   Weinberg, Janice ^b   Sherman, Karen J ^c,d   Saper, Robert B ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Back pain; CATI; Reliability; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TELEPHONE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTILIZATION; YOGA;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; TELEPHONE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOGA;

EID: 84899480173     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-227     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Mode of administration bias. Cook C, J Man Manip Ther 2010 18 61 63 10.1179/106698110X12640740712617 21655386
2. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. de Leeuw ED, J Off Stat 2005 21 233 255
3. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Bowling A, J Public Health 2005 27 281 291 10.1093/pubmed/fdi031
4. Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B, J Asthma 2003 40 751 762 10.1081/JAS-120023501 14626331
5. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S, Value Health 2008 11 322 333 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x 18380645
6. Randomised controlled comparison of the health survey short form (SF-12) and the graded chronic pain scale (GCPS) in telephone interviews versus self-administered questionnaires: are the results equivalent? Lungenhausen M, Lange S, Maier C, Schaub C, Trampisch HJ, Endres HG, BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 50 10.1186/1471-2288-7-50 18034900
7. Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Stringfellow VL, Zaslavsky AM, Thompson JW, Cleary PD, Med Care 2002 40 190 200 10.1097/00005650-200203000- 00003 11880792
8. Comparing once-versus twice-weekly yoga classes for chronic low back pain in predominantly low income minorities: a randomized dosing trial. Saper RB, Boah AR, Keosaian J, Cerrada C, Weinberg J, Sherman KJ, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013 2013 658030 23878604
9. StudyTRAX. [ http://www.sciencetrax.com/studytrax/ ]
10. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Bombardier C, Spine 2000 25 3100 3103 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003 11124724
11. Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P, Spine 2000 25 3140 3151 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00009 11124730
12. Measurement of pain using the visual numeric scale. Ritter PL, González VM, Laurent DD, Lorig KR, J Rheumatol 2006 33 574 580 16511926
13. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB, Spine 1995 20 1899 1908 10.1097/00007632-199509000-00011 8560339
14. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Roland M, Fairbank J, Spine 2000 25 3115 3124 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006 11124727
15. SF-36 health survey update. Ware JE, Spine 2000 25 24 3130 3139 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008 11124729
16. The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Hudak PL, Wright JG, Spine 2000 25 3167 3177 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00012 11124733
17. Intraclass correlation coefficient. Koch GG, Encyclopedia of statistical sciences New York: John Wiley, Kotz S, Johnson NL, 1982 213 217
18. Concordance in the measurement of quality of life and health indicators between two methods of computer-assisted interviews: self-administered and by telephone. Klevens J, Trick WE, Kee R, Angulo F, Garcia D, Sadowski LS, Qual Life Res 2011 20 1179 1186 10.1007/s11136-011-9862-2 21318647
19. A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A, BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 27 10.1186/1471-2288-7-27 17592653
20. Understanding differences in people's answers to telephone and mail surveys. Dillman DA, Sangster RL, Tarnai J, Rockwood TH, New Dir Eval 1996 1996 45 61 10.1002/ev.1034
21. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, Lai SM, Studenski S, Perera S, Alfrey C, Marquez J, Med Care 2005 43 507 515 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160421.42858.de 15838417
22. Comparability of skin screening histories obtained by telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires: a randomized crossover study. Aitken JF, Youl PH, Janda M, Elwood M, Ring IT, Lowe JB, Am J Epidemiol 2004 160 598 604 10.1093/aje/kwh263 15353421 Medicine