↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Conversion of standard retrospective patient-reported outcomes to momentary versions: cognitive interviewing reveals varying degrees of momentary compatibility
Published in
Quality of Life Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11136-017-1762-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Psychology 6 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#2,071
of 2,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,230
of 439,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#47
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,915 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.