Abstract
BackgroundThe computerized administration of self-report psychiatric diagnostic and outcomes assessments has risen in popularity. If results are similar enough across different administration modalities, then new administration technologies can be used interchangeably and the choice of technology can be based on other factors, such as convenience in the study design. An assessment based on item response theory (IRT), such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression item bank, offers new possibilities for assessing the effect of technology choice upon results.ObjectiveTo create equivalent halves of the PROMIS depression item bank and to use these halves to compare survey responses and user satisfaction among administration modalities—paper, mobile phone, or tablet—with a community mental health care population.MethodsThe 28 PROMIS depression items were divided into 2 halves based on content and simulations with an established PROMIS response data set. A total of 129 participants were recruited from an outpatient public sector mental health clinic based in Memphis. All participants took both nonoverlapping halves of the PROMIS IRT-based depression items (Part A and Part B): once using paper and pencil, and once using either a mobile phone or tablet. An 8-cell randomization was done on technology used, order of technologies used, and order of PROMIS Parts A and B. Both Parts A and B were administered as fixed-length assessments and both were scored using published PROMIS IRT parameters and algorithms.ResultsAll 129 participants received either Part A or B via paper assessment. Participants were also administered the opposite assessment, 63 using a mobile phone and 66 using a tablet. There was no significant difference in item response scores for Part A versus B. All 3 of the technologies yielded essentially identical assessment results and equivalent satisfaction levels.ConclusionsOur findings show that the PROMIS depression assessment can be divided into 2 equivalent halves, with the potential to simplify future experimental methodologies. Among community mental health care recipients, the PROMIS items function similarly whether administered via paper, tablet, or mobile phone. User satisfaction across modalities was also similar. Because paper, tablet, and mobile phone administrations yielded similar results, the choice of technology should be based on factors such as convenience and can even be changed during a study without adversely affecting the comparability of results.
Highlights
As Internet and electronic survey administration technologies have shown many advantages and benefits relative to paper forms, computerized administrations of diagnostic and outcome measures have grown in popularity [1]
Principal Results This study found no significant difference between the 2 item sets created from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression item bank; Forms A and B functioned equivalently in our sample
We found no significant differences between electronic data collection (EDC) method and paper, or between mobile phone and tablet
Summary
As Internet and electronic survey administration technologies have shown many advantages and benefits relative to paper forms, computerized administrations of diagnostic and outcome measures have grown in popularity [1]. Patients and research participants alternate between paper and electronic data collection (EDC) mediums as needed, such as when certain parts of a facility differ in regards to wireless connectivity, or when it is unknown what device an end-user may use to complete a survey sent as a link in an email In cases such as these, researchers need to know whether the administration technology meaningfully affects results and whether these technologies can be used interchangeably within a single study. A total of 129 participants were recruited from an outpatient public sector mental health clinic based in Memphis All participants took both nonoverlapping halves of the PROMIS IRT-based depression items (Part A and Part B): once using paper and pencil, and once using either a mobile phone or tablet. Tablet, and mobile phone administrations yielded similar results, the choice of technology should be based on factors such as convenience and can even be changed during a study without adversely affecting the comparability of results
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.