Cargando…

Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study

OBJECTIVE: There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Engel, Lidia, Kosowicz, Leona, Bogatyreva, Ekaterina, Batchelor, Frances, Devlin, Nancy, Dow, Briony, Gilbert, Andrew S., Mulhern, Brendan, Peasgood, Tessa, Viney, Rosalie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10570159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37803217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6
_version_ 1785119700481474560
author Engel, Lidia
Kosowicz, Leona
Bogatyreva, Ekaterina
Batchelor, Frances
Devlin, Nancy
Dow, Briony
Gilbert, Andrew S.
Mulhern, Brendan
Peasgood, Tessa
Viney, Rosalie
author_facet Engel, Lidia
Kosowicz, Leona
Bogatyreva, Ekaterina
Batchelor, Frances
Devlin, Nancy
Dow, Briony
Gilbert, Andrew S.
Mulhern, Brendan
Peasgood, Tessa
Viney, Rosalie
author_sort Engel, Lidia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are ‘on their face’ when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care. METHODS: Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model. RESULTS: In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10570159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105701592023-10-14 Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study Engel, Lidia Kosowicz, Leona Bogatyreva, Ekaterina Batchelor, Frances Devlin, Nancy Dow, Briony Gilbert, Andrew S. Mulhern, Brendan Peasgood, Tessa Viney, Rosalie Patient Original Research Article OBJECTIVE: There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are ‘on their face’ when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care. METHODS: Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model. RESULTS: In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6. Springer International Publishing 2023-10-06 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10570159/ /pubmed/37803217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Engel, Lidia
Kosowicz, Leona
Bogatyreva, Ekaterina
Batchelor, Frances
Devlin, Nancy
Dow, Briony
Gilbert, Andrew S.
Mulhern, Brendan
Peasgood, Tessa
Viney, Rosalie
Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study
title Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study
title_full Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study
title_fullStr Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study
title_full_unstemmed Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study
title_short Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study
title_sort face validity of four preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care: a think-aloud study
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10570159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37803217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00647-6
work_keys_str_mv AT engellidia facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT kosowiczleona facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT bogatyrevaekaterina facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT batchelorfrances facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT devlinnancy facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT dowbriony facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT gilbertandrews facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT mulhernbrendan facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT peasgoodtessa facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy
AT vineyrosalie facevalidityoffourpreferenceweightedqualityoflifemeasuresinresidentialagedcareathinkaloudstudy