CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 623Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Equivalence of Electronic and Paper-and-Pencil Administration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Meta-Analytic Review

Open access
Gwaltney, Chad J., Shields, Alan L., Shiffman, Saul·2008·Value in Health
DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives Patient-reported outcomes (PROs; self-report assessments) are increasingly important in evaluating medical care and treatment efficacy. Electronic administration of PROs via computer is becoming widespread. This article reviews the literature addressing whether computer-administered tests are equivalent to their paper-and-pencil forms.Methods Meta-analysis was used to synthesize 65 studies that directly assessed the equivalence of computer versus paper versions of PROs used in clinical trials. A total of 46 unique studies, evaluating 278 scales, provided sufficient detail to allow quantitative analysis.Results Among 233 direct comparisons, the average mean difference between modes averaged 0.2% of the scale range (e.g., 0.02 points on a 10-point scale), and 93% were within +/-5% of the scale range. Among 207 correlation coefficients between paper and computer instruments (typically intraclass correlation coefficients), the average weighted correlation was 0.90; 94% of correlations were at least 0.75. Because the cross-mode correlation (paper vs. computer) is also a test-retest correlation, with potential variation because of retest, we compared it to the within-mode (paper vs. paper) test-retest correlation. In four comparisons that evaluated both, the average cross-mode paper-to-computer correlation was almost identical to the within-mode correlation for readministration of a paper measure (0.88 vs. 0.91).Conclusions Extensive evidence indicates that paper- and computer-administered PROs are equivalent.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 76 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Food and Drug Administration, 2006, Guidance for industry: Patient Reported Outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, Fed Regis, 71, 1
  2. Hufford, 2002, Electronic subject diaries: an examination of applications and what works in the field, Appl Clin Trials, 11, 46
  3. Hufford MR, Shiffman S. Correspondence between paper and electronic visual analog scales among adult asthmatics. Paper Presented at the Drug Information Association Statistics Conference. Hilton Head, South Carolina, 2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 622

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • East Tennessee State University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
ORCID
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-03
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
322-333
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x
OpenAlex
W2146545407
Cited by
623
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 25
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, paper-and-pencil administration, mode effects, measurement invariance, test-retest reliability, clinical trials
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Statistics as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Computers, Handheld

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