The Development of a Comprehensive, Institution-Based Patient Risk Evaluation Program: I. Development, Content, and Data Management

Abstract

The accuracy of historical information derived from self-administered questionnaires must be confirmed. We report the results of studies conducted to assess the reliability and validity of data collected from a comprehensive cancer risk factor questionnaire developed at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. A comparison of the basic demographic data of a randomly selected sample of 80 respondents and 70 nonrespondents revealed no fundamental ethnic or socioeconomic differences. We verified self-reported past illnesses, surgical procedures, and cancers by reviewing 72 patient charts, using stringent diagnostic criteria for verification. We noted substantial agreement between self-reported and documented illnesses and operations. With the exception of nine patients who misclassified metastatic disease, the verification of primary cancers was excellent. We determined reliability by interviewing 50 of these patients by telephone. Questions with a dichotomous outcome (e.g., smoking status) were reliably answered; however, those requiring quantification (e.g., amount of alcohol consumed) were less accurately reported on interview. While we recognize the limitations of self-administered questionnaires, we believe this program will develop into a comprehensive, standardized, easily accessible patient risk factor data base.