Psychometric Properties of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS (R)) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey

*Westat, Rockville, MD †Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT ‡RAND, Santa Monica, CA §UCLA Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 11/2012; 50 Suppl(11):S28-34. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31826cbc0d
Source: PubMed


: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey enables patients to report their experiences with outpatient medical offices.
: To evaluate the factor structure and reliability of the CAHPS Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) Adult Visit Survey.
: Data from 21,318 patients receiving care in 450 clinical practice sites collected from March 2010 to December 2010 were analyzed from the CG-CAHPS Database. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:: Individual level and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine CAHPS survey responses at the patient and practice site levels. We also estimated internal consistency reliability and practice site level reliability. Correlations among multi-item composites and correlations between the composites and 2 global rating items were examined.
: Scores on CG-CAHPS composites assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, Courteous/Helpful Staff, and 2 global ratings of whether one would Recommend their Doctor, and an Overall Doctor Rating.
: Analyses provide support for the hypothesized 3-factor model assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, and Courteous/Helpful Staff. In addition, the internal consistency reliabilities were ≥0.77 and practice site level reliabilities for sites with >4 clinicians were ≥0.75. All composites were positively and significantly correlated with the 2 global rating items, with Doctor Communication having the strongest relationship with the global ratings.
: The CG-CAHPS Adult Visit Survey has acceptable psychometric properties at the individual level and practice site level. The analyses suggest that the survey items are measuring their intended concepts and yield reliable information.

Download full-text


Available from: Paul D Cleary, Jul 26, 2014
1 Follower
59 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient's position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites.Methods/designIn this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology. Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care.
    BMC Cancer 10/2013; 13(1):455. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-13-455 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: There is evidence that Black patients may experience stereotype threat--apprehension about being negatively stereotyped--in healthcare settings, which might adversely affect their behavior in clinical encounters. Recent studies conducted outside of healthcare have shown that a brief self-affirmation intervention, in which individuals are asked to focus on and affirm their valued characteristics and sources of personal pride, can reduce the negative effects of stereotype threat on academic performance and on interpersonal communication. Methods: This randomised controlled trial examined whether a self-affirmation (SA) intervention would decrease the negative effects of stereotype threat (negative mood, lower state self-esteem, greater perceptions of racial discrimination) and increase communication self-efficacy among Black primary care patients. Self-affirmation was induced by having patients complete a 32-item values affirmation questionnaire. Results: Patients in the SA condition had lower levels of performance self-esteem and social self-esteem than patients in the control. There were no differences between the SA and the control groups on negative mood, communication self-efficacy, and perceptions of discrimination. Conclusions: Our SA intervention lowered state self-esteem among Black patients. Future research is needed to determine the type of SA task that is most effective for this population.
    Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being 10/2013; 6(2). DOI:10.1111/aphw.12015 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine how different response scales, methods of survey administration, and survey format affect responses to the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey. A total of 6,500 patients from a university health center were randomly assigned to receive the following: standard 12-page mail surveys using 4-category or 6-category response scales (on CG-CAHPS composite items), telephone surveys using 4-category or 6-category response scales, or four-page mail surveys. A total of 3,538 patients completed surveys. Composite score means and provider-level reliabilities did not differ between respondents receiving 4-category or 6-category response scale surveys or between 12-page and four-page mail surveys. Telephone respondents gave more positive responses than mail respondents. We recommend using 4-category response scales and the four-page mail CG-CAHPS survey.
    Health Services Research 01/2014; 49(4). DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12160 · 2.78 Impact Factor
Show more