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
  • 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: Modern psychometric methods for scoring the Clinician & Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS®) instrument can improve the precision of patient scores. The extent to which these methods can improve the reliable estimation and comparison of individual physician performance, however, remains unclear. Using CG-CAHPS® data from 12,244 unique patients of 448 primary care physicians in southern California, four methods were used to calculate composite scores: (1) standard scoring, (2) a single factor confirmatory factor analysis model, (3) a bifactor model, and (4) a correlated factor model. We extracted factor scores for physicians from each model and adjusted the scores for respondent characteristics, including age, education, self-rated physical health, and race/ethnicity. Physician-level reliability and physician rankings were examined across the four methods. The bifactor and correlated factor models achieved the best fit for the core CG-CAHPS® questions from the three core composite measures. Compared to standard adjusted scoring, the bifactor model scores resulted in a 25 % reduction in required sample sizes per physician. The correlation of physician rankings between scoring methods ranged from 0.58 to 0.86. The discordance of physician rankings across scoring methods was most pronounced in the middle of the performance distribution. Using modern psychometric methods to score physician performance on the core CG-CAHPS® questions may improve the reliability of physician performance estimates on patient experience measures, thereby reducing the required respondent sample sizes per physician compared to standard scoring. To assess the predictive validity of the CG-CAHPS® scores generated by modern psychometric methods, future research should examine the relative association of different scoring methods and important patient-centered outcomes of care.
    Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 12/2013; 13(2-4):109-123. DOI:10.1007/s10742-013-0111-8
Show more