Evaluation properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 satisfaction with care questionnaire according to classical and item response theory analyses

Quality of Life Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 03/2014; 23(7). DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0658-z
Source: PubMed


The present study investigates the properties of the French version of the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire, which evaluates the outpatients' satisfaction with care in oncology using classical analysis (CTT) and item response theory (IRT).
This cross-sectional multicenter study includes 692 patients who completed the questionnaire at the end of their ambulatory treatment. CTT analyses tested the main psychometric properties (convergent and divergent validity, and internal consistency). IRT analyses were conducted separately for each OUT-PATSAT35 domain (the doctors, the nurses or the radiation therapists and the services/organization) by models from the Rasch family. We examined the fit of the data to the model expectations and tested whether the model assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity and local independence were respected.
A total of 605 (87.4 %) respondents were analyzed with a mean age of 64 years (range 29-88). Internal consistency for all scales separately and for the three main domains was good (Cronbach's α 0.74-0.98). IRT analyses were performed with the partial credit model. No disordered thresholds of polytomous items were found. Each domain showed high reliability but fitted poorly to the Rasch models. Three items in particular, the item about "promptness" in the doctors' domain and the items about "accessibility" and "environment" in the services/organization domain, presented the highest default of fit. A correct fit of the Rasch model can be obtained by dropping these items. Most of the local dependence concerned items about "information provided" in each domain. A major deviation of unidimensionality was found in the nurses' domain.
CTT showed good psychometric properties of the OUT-PATSAT35. However, the Rasch analysis revealed some misfitting and redundant items. Taking the above problems into consideration, it could be interesting to refine the questionnaire in a future study.

Download full-text


Available from: Amélie Anota, Mar 14, 2014
  • Source
    • "For the WHOQOL-BREF, construct validity has been evaluated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses [2], multitrait analysis [3] and Pearson correlations [4]. As a modern psychometric method, Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis has been invited into questionnaire development, refinement, evaluation, and item reduction [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. In particular, IRT analysis can also be used for evaluating construct validity of a scale. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study was to evaluate the construct validity of WHOQOL-BREF & Disabilities module for physical disabilities (PD) and intellectual disabilities (ID) people, using Item Response Theory (IRT) Graded Response Model (GRM) analysis. As one of 14 centres for the field study of the WHOQOL Disabilities module, a stratified representative sample of Guangzhou general disabled people was approached for interview. It contained 1000 respondents: 807 physical disabled people and 193 intellectual disabled people. IRT GRM analysis was used to evaluate the construct validity of WHOQOL-BREF & Disabilities module. Each domain of WHOQOL-BREF showed appropriate fit to the two-parameter IRT GRM. The Disabilities module as overall one domain had a better fitting than as three domains. Discrimination parameters of item 3, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 25 were statistically equal to one for both the PD 5-point response version and the ID 3-point response version of the scales. The domain test information curves showed that the PD group had a larger range of scale scores of information >5 than the ID group. The construct validity of WHOQOL-BREF and Disabilities module using GRM analysis complements previous validation studies.
    The 2014 IEEE International conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM); 11/2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: General questionnaires are often used to assess quality of life in patients with spine metastases, while a disease-specific survey did not exist until recently. The Spine Oncology Study Group has developed a questionnaire (SOSG-OQ) to measure quality of life in these patients. However, a scoring system was not developed and the questionnaire was not validated in a group of patients, nor was it compared to other general quality of life questionnaires such as the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Our primary null hypothesis is that there is no association between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D. Our secondary null hypothesis is that there is no difference in coverage and internal consistency between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D. We also assess coverage, consistency, and validity of the domains within the SOSG-OQ. Survey study from a tertiary care spine referral center. 82 patients with spine metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma. The SOSG-OQ (27 questions, 6 domains) score ranges from 0 to 80 with a higher score indicating worse quality of life. The EQ-5D (5 questions, 5 domains) index score ranges from 0 to 1 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The association between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D index score was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation. Instrument coverage and precision were assessed by determining item completion rate, median score with range, and floor and ceiling effect. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Multitrait analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used to analyze properties of the individual domains in the SOSG-OQ. No grants or funds were received for this study. The Spearman rank correlation between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D questionnaire was high (r = -0.83, P < 0.001). Internal consistency of the SOSG-OQ (0.92, 95% CI: 0.89 - 0.94) was higher as compared to the internal consistency of the EQ-5D (0.73, 95% CI: 0.63 - 0.84; P < 0.001). The SOSG-OQ score had no floor or ceiling effect indicating good coverage (median 30, range 3 - 64), while the EQ-5D had a ceiling effect of 10% (median 0.71, range 0.05 - 1). In conclusion, our study proposes a scoring methodology -after reversing 4 inversely scored items- for the SOSG-OQ and demonstrates that the questionnaire is a valid tool for the assessment of quality of life in patients with metastatic spine disease. The SOSG-OQ is superior to the EQ-5D in terms of coverage and internal consistency, but consists of more questions. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 08/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.456 · 2.43 Impact Factor