Validation and testing of the Acceptability E-scale for Web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care
Open accessAbstract
The performance of the Acceptability E-scale was tested in a sample of 627 adult and older adult patients from various oncology clinics who completed an electronic symptoms survey. The revised Acceptability E-scale has strong psychometric properties and can be useful in assessing the acceptability and usability of computerized health-related programs in oncology and other health population.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Acceptability E-scale is a questionnaire validated in adults with cancer that contains 6 questions assessing the acceptability of technology-based products.
“The Acceptability E-scale is a questionnaire validated in adults with cancer that contains 6 questions assessing the acceptability of technology-based products, each with 5 response options [68].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [68]
A score of 24, or 80% of the highest possible summary score, is the recommended cutoff for adequate acceptability of a technology-based product as rated by the participants.
“A score of 24, or 80% of the highest possible summary score, is the recommended cutoff for adequate acceptability of a technology-based product as rated by the participants [68].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [68]
The study set its a priori cutoff score at 24 for product acceptability.
“Thus, we set our a priori cutoff score at 24 for product acceptability [68].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [68]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
(1991) · Cited by 15,554 · see citing works
Scale Development: Theory and Applications.
Xie, Y., & DeVellis, R. F. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2075704 · Cited by 3,691 · see citing works
(2003) · Cited by 2,093 · see citing works
Patient Online Self-Reporting of Toxicity Symptoms During Chemotherapy
Basch, E., Artz, D. R., Dulko, D., Scher, K. S., Sabbatini, P. J., Hensley, M. L., Mitra, N., Speakman, J., McCabe, M. S., & Schrag, D. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.04.275 · Cited by 308 · see citing works
Evaluation of an Online Platform for Cancer Patient Self-reporting of Chemotherapy Toxicities
Basch, E., Artz, D. R., Iasonos, A. E., Speakman, J., Shannon, K., Lin, K., Pun, C. D., Yong, H., Fearn, P., Leahy, A. B., et al. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2177 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
(1997) · PubMed · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Gysels, M., & Higginson, I. J. (2006) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0112-z · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Mullen, K. H., Berry, D. L., & Zierler, B. K. (2004) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/04.onf.e84-e89 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Self-citationComputerized Quality-of-Life Screening in a Cancer Pain Clinic
Carlson, L. E., Speca, M., Hagen, N., & Taenzer, P. (2001) · Journal of Palliative Care · doi:10.1177/082585970101700108 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Berry, D. L., Trigg, L. J., Lober, W. B., Karras, B. T., Galligan, M. L., Austin-Seymour, M., & Martin, S. L. (2004) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/04.onf.e75-e83 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationvan den Brink, J. L., Moorman, P. W., de Boer, M. F., et al. (2005) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.03.021 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Thomas, R. K. (2009) · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Bush, N. E., Donaldson, G. W., Moinpour, C. M., Haberman, M., Milliken, D., Markle, V., & Lauson, J. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-2394-2 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Acceptability of an Electronic Self-report Assessment Program for Patients With Cancer
Wolpin, S. E., Berry, D. L., Austin-Seymour, M., Bush, N. E., Fann, J. R., Halpenny, B., Lober, W. B., & McCorkle, R. C. (2008) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.ncn.0000336464.79692.6a · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationElectronic Self-report Assessment--Cancer (ESRA-C): Working towards an integrated survey system.
Karras, B. T., Wolpin, S. E., Lober, W. B., et al. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationInternet Design Preferences of Patients With Cancer
Chernecky, C. C., Macklin, D., & Waller, J. L. (2006) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/06.onf.787-792 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Computerized visualization of quality of life data of individual cancer patients ? the QoL-Profiler
Middeke, M., Bauhofer, A., Kopp, I., et al. (2004) · Inflammation Research · doi:10.1007/s00011-004-0360-7 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Distributed health assessment and intervention research software framework.
Dockrey, M. R., Lober, W. B., Wolpin, S. E., et al. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationInfinite excellence. Live the brand promise by emphasizing "always".
Cunningham, L., Weber, Z., & Cook, K. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Assessing Patient Satisfaction—The Government Has a Solution
Elder, J. S. (2007) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.077 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Philip, P., Micoulaud-Franchi, J.-A., Sagaspe, P., Sevin, E. D., Olive, J., Bioulac, S., & Sauteraud, A. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep42656 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Chatbots to Support Young Adults’ Mental Health: An Exploratory Study of Acceptability
Koulouri, T., Macredie, R. D., & Olakitan, D. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3485874 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Philip, P., Dupuy, L., Morin, C. M., de Sevin, E., Bioulac, S., Taillard, J., Serre, F., Auriacombe, M., & Micoulaud-Franchi, J.-A. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24268 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach
Nuseibeh, B. Z., Johns, S. A., Shih, P. C., Lewis, G. F., Gowan, T. M., & Jordan, E. J. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/59426 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tariman, J. D., Berry, D. L., Halpenny, B., Wolpin, S., & Schepp, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tariman, Joseph D.
- Venue
- Applied Nursing Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-58
- ISSN
- 0897-1897 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3030937
- OpenAlex
- W2103080374
- Cited by
- 157
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Applied Nursing Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Commons-DePaul (DePaul University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5t32nr007106-15)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (T32-NR-007106)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- patient-reported outcomes, cancer care, psychometric validation, acceptability, usability, older adults
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
