Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): a randomised crossover trial in cancer patients

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) assesses everyday problems experienced by cancer patients, including difficulties with self-care, work and relationships. Early development and psychometric evaluation studies have validated the SDI-21 for computer administration. However, several recent studies have administered the SDI-21 on paper. We sought to test the score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the SDI-21.

Methods

A randomised two-arm crossover trial in a sample of cancer patients with varied diagnoses. Patients completed electronic (via the internet) and paper versions of the SDI-21, with half randomly assigned to complete the electronic version first (n = 51) and half the paper version first (n = 60). Patients were asked to complete both versions at home, within 2 weeks. Analyses were performed for the SDI-21 summary score and three subscales.

Results

Score distributions and internal reliabilities for the paper and electronic versions were highly similar. There were no significant differences between mean summary or subscale scores for the two administration modes. All mean score differences (all <0.25 of a scale point) were well below the SDI-21’s established minimally important differences, and all 95 % confidence intervals were narrow and included zero. Intraclass correlations between paper and electronic scores were uniformly high and significant (all ≥0.85) and above the standard acceptable level of reliability.

Conclusions

Paper and electronic versions of the SDI-21 can be considered equivalent and used interchangeably. This is important because, despite the growth of electronic formats, paper versions are currently still necessary to ensure inclusive use of the SDI-21 with representative samples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Wright, E. P., Kiely, M. A., Lynch, P., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2002). Social problems in oncology. British Journal of Cancer, 87(10), 1099–1104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guidance on cancer services: Improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer. Accessed January 2, 2012 from http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10893/28816/28816.pdf.

  3. Wright, E. P., Kiely, M., Johnston, C., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2005). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 373–386.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wright, P., Smith, A., Roberts, K., Selby, P., & Velikova, G. (2007). Screening for social difficulties in cancer patients: Clinical utility of the Social Difficulties Inventory. British Journal of Cancer, 97(8), 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright, P., Marshall, L., Smith, A. B., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. (2008). Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI). European Journal of Cancer, 44(11), 1529–1535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wright, P., Smith, A. B., Keding, A., & Velikova, G. (2011). The social difficulties inventory (SDI): Development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff. Psycho-Oncology, 20(1), 36–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanif, N., Dharni, N., Smith, A., Chattoo, S., Velikova, G., Bradley, C., et al. (2011). Translation of the social difficulties inventory (SDI-21) into three south Asian languages and preliminary evaluation of SDI-21(Urdu). Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 431–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon, A. E., & Wardle, J. (2008). Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial wellbeing in cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 44(4), 572–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stevinson, C., Lydon, A., & Amir, Z. (2011). Cancer support group participation in the United Kingdom: A national survey. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(5), 675–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Health, Macmillan Cancer Support and NHS Improvement. (2010). National cancer survivorship initiative vision. Accessed January 2, 2012 from http://www.ncsi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/NCSI-Vision-Document.pdf.

  11. Greenlaw, C., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: Testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review, 33(5), 464–480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maddams, J., Brewster, D., Gavin, A., Steward, J., Elliott, J., Utley, M., et al. (2009). Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: Estimates for 2008. British Journal of Cancer, 101(3), 541–547.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Office for National Statistics. (2010). Internet access: Households and individuals, 2010. Accessed January 2, 2012 from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access—households-and-individuals/2010/index.html.

  15. Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., 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 in Health, 12(4), 419–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., & Hamill-Ruth, R. J. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110(1–2), 310–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bishop, F. L., Lewis, G., Harris, S., McKay, N., Prentice, P., Thiel, H., et al. (2010). A within-subjects trial to test the equivalence of online and paper outcome measures: The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11, 113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., Gould, A., Forman, D., et al. (1999). Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(3), 998–1007.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pocock, S. J. (1988). Clinical trials: A practical approach. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wu, R. C., Thorpe, K., Ross, H., Micevski, V., Marquez, C., & Straus, S. E. (2009). Comparing administration of questionnaires via the internet to pen-and-paper in patients with heart failure: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11, e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Accessed February 7, 2012 from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0107-12239). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Prof. Galina Velikova, Ada Keding and Dr Penny Wright were supported by a Cancer Research UK programme grant (C7775/A7424). The authors wish to thank David Forman and Amy Downing for input into the original study design, members of the psychosocial oncology and clinical practice research group for data collection, and everyone who participated in the study. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, University of Leeds, Level 3, Bexley Wing, St James’s Institute of Oncology, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK

    Laura Ashley, Ada Keding, Galina Velikova & Penny Wright

  2. Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Julia Brown

Authors
  1. Laura Ashley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ada Keding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Galina Velikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Penny Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Ashley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ashley, L., Keding, A., Brown, J. et al. Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): a randomised crossover trial in cancer patients. Qual Life Res 22, 1435–1440 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0242-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0242-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation