Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 1065–1076 | Cite as

Conversion of standard retrospective patient-reported outcomes to momentary versions: cognitive interviewing reveals varying degrees of momentary compatibility

  • Victor Brun Boesen
  • Stine Birk Nissen
  • Mogens Groenvold
  • Jakob Bue Bjorner
  • Laszlo Hegedüs
  • Steen Joop Bonnema
  • Åse Krogh Rasmussen
  • Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen
  • Torquil Watt
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to adapt different domains of an existing retrospective questionnaire to momentary versions, to use and assess cognitive interviewing for evaluating the new versions, and to compare momentary compatibility (i.e. an item’s potential to be validly converted to a momentary version) across different scales.

Methods

Initial momentary versions of retrospective patient-reported outcomes were produced by converting present perfect tense wording to present tense wording. Cognitive interviews were conducted iteratively with 21 patients to determine which reference period they actually employed, and to identify problems with new, revised versions. A think-aloud interview protocol was supplemented with non-specific concurrent and specific retrospective probing. The momentary compatibility of each item was evaluated by calculating the proportion of interviews wherein momentary reference periods were identified; problems were categorized according to cognitive aspects of survey methodology taxonomy. The efficiency of various cognitive interviewing techniques was determined by evaluating whether applied reference periods were identified by think-aloud alone or by supplementary probes.

Results

The momentary compatibility varied from 5 to 100% across items. Cognitive interviews revealed potential problems of various severities in the majority of items. Think-aloud alone was sufficient at determining the applied reference period in one-third of the cases, and the efficiency of additional concurrent and retrospective probing was 50 and 94%, respectively.

Conclusions

Cognitive interviewing techniques proved useful for developing and evaluating momentary items. Researchers should be aware of the applied reference period and of emerging problems when evaluating adapted momentary items, since not all concepts are suitable. We recommend the proposed method in future adaptations of existing instruments.

Keywords

Ecological momentary assessments Cognitive interviewing Patient-reported outcomes Thyroid diseases Quality-of-life measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Bo Kehlet Watt (Kehlet IT) for designing and programming the smartphone app. LH is supported by an unrestricted grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Funding

This study was funded by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (grant 271-09-0143).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was performed in compliance with the Declarations of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed by the local Ethical Committee (reg. # H-A-2009-FSP23). According to Danish law, questionnaire studies do not require and thus cannot obtain approval by ethical committees.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Moinpour, C. M., Basch, E., Reeve, B. B., & Wu, A. W., & International Society for Quality of Life, R. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Atienza, A. A., & Nebeling, L. (2007). The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christodoulou, C., Junghaenel, D. U., DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., & Stone, A. A. (2008). Cognitive interviewing in the evaluation of fatigue items: Results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Quality of Life Research, 17(10), 1239–1246.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watt, T., Rasmussen, A. K., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Watt, S. H., Bonnema, S. J., Hegedus, L., & Feldt-Rasmussen, U. (2008). Improving a newly developed patient-reported outcome for thyroid patients, using cognitive interviewing. Quality of Life Research, 17(7), 1009–1017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Watt, T., Bjorner, J. B., Groenvold, M., Rasmussen, A. K., Bonnema, S. J., Hegedus, L., & Feldt-Rasmussen, U. (2009). Establishing construct validity for the thyroid-specific patient reported outcome measure (ThyPRO): An initial examination. Quality of Life Research, 18(4), 483–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watt, T., Hegedus, L., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Rasmussen, A. K., Bonnema, S. J., & Feldt-Rasmussen, U. (2010). Validity and reliability of the novel thyroid-specific quality of life questionnaire, ThyPRO. European Journal of Endocrinology, 162(1), 161–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watt, T., Cramon, P., Hegedus, L., Bjorner, J. B., Bonnema, S. J., Rasmussen, A. K., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., & Groenvold, M. (2014). The thyroid-related quality of life measure ThyPRO has good responsiveness and ability to detect relevant treatment effects. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 99(10), 3708–3717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watt, T., Groenvold, M., Deng, N., Gandek, B., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., Rasmussen, A. K., Hegedus, L., Bonnema, S. J., & Bjorner, J. B. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of the thyroid-related quality of life questionnaire ThyPRO. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watt, T., Groenvold, M., Hegedus, L., Bonnema, S. J., Rasmussen, A. K., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., & Bjorner, J. B. (2014). Few items in the thyroid-related quality of life instrument ThyPRO exhibited differential item functioning. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 327–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watt, T., Barbesino, G., Bjorner, J. B., Bonnema, S. J., Bukvic, B., Drummond, R., Groenvold, M., Hegedus, L., Kantzer, V., Lasch, K. E., Marcocci, C., Mishra, A., Netea-Maier, R., Ekker, M., Paunovic, I., Quinn, T. J., Rasmussen, A. K., Russell, A., Sabaretnam, M., Smit, J., Torring, O., Zivaljevic, V., & Feldt-Rasmussen, U. (2015). Cross-cultural validity of the thyroid-specific quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measure, ThyPRO. Quality of Life Research, 24(3), 769–780.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cramon, P., Winther, K. H., Watt, T., Bonnema, S. J., Bjorner, J. B., Ekholm, O., Groenvold, M., Hegedus, L., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., & Rasmussen, A. K. (2016). Quality-of-life impairments persist six months after treatment of graves’ hyperthyroidism and toxic nodular goiter: A prospective cohort study. Thyroid, 26(8), 1010–1018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, T. J., & Hegedus, L. (2016). Graves’ disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(16), 1552–1565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mullin, P. A., Lohr, K. N., Bresnahan, B. W., & McNulty, P. (2000). Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Quality of Life Research, 9(1), 13–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watt, T. (2017). Development, validation, application and abbreviation of an international thyroid-related quality of life patient-reported outcome measure Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA, 273(1), 59–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burke, L. (2012). An FDA perspective on clinical trial endpoint measurements. ACTTION-II. U. S. F. a. D. Administration (Ed.).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kastien-Hilka, T., Rosenkranz, B., Bennett, B., Sinanovic, E., & Schwenkglenks, M. (2016). How to evaluate health-related quality of life and its association with medication adherence in pulmonary tuberculosis—designing a prospective observational study in South Africa. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 7, 125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thielsch, C., Andor, T., & Ehring, T. (2015). Do metacognitions and intolerance of uncertainty predict worry in everyday life? An ecological momentary assessment study. Behavior Therapy, 46(4), 532–543.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thielsch, C., Ehring, T., Nestler, S., Wolters, J., Kopei, I., Rist, F., Gerlach, A. L., & Andor, T. (2015). Metacognitions, worry and sleep in everyday life: Studying bidirectional pathways using ecological momentary assessment in GAD patients. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 33, 53–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Neale, J. M., Shiffman, S., Marco, C. A., Hickcox, M., Paty, J., Porter, L. S., & Cruise, L. J. (1998). A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1670–1680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., de Haes, J. C., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Conner, T. S., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). Trends in ambulatory self-report: The role of momentary experience in psychosomatic medicine. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(4), 327–337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwarz, N. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The rationale for real-time data capture. In The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research, (pp. 25 (p. 396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Brun Boesen
    • 1
  • Stine Birk Nissen
    • 2
  • Mogens Groenvold
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jakob Bue Bjorner
    • 2
  • Laszlo Hegedüs
    • 4
  • Steen Joop Bonnema
    • 4
  • Åse Krogh Rasmussen
    • 1
  • Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen
    • 1
  • Torquil Watt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EndocrinologyCopenhagen University Hospital RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Palliative MedicineBispebjerg HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Endocrinology and MetabolismOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations