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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ETSU/oai:dc.etsu.edu:etsu-works-18902 |
| Date | 01 January 2008 |
| Creators | Gwaltney, Chad, Shields, Alan L., Shiffman, Saul |
| Publisher | Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University |
| Source Sets | East Tennessee State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Source | ETSU Faculty Works |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds