A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an extended Q-TWiST analysis

Carolyn E. Schwartz, Susan D. Mathias, David J. Pasta, Hilary H. Colwell, Bruce D. Rapkin, M. Wilson Genderson, James M. Henning

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Patient-centered methods for evaluating treatments require validated preference-elicitation techniques. We describe the validation of two preference-elicitation approaches for use in an Extended Q-TWiST treatment evaluation. The first method was an 'idiographic' approach, which attempts to capture intra-individual differences in the degree to which each domain distracted from and interfered with life activities. The second method, a Likert-scaled approach, asks patients to evaluate the importance of each quality-of-life (QOL) domain. Methods: Patient-reported QOL and preferences were assessed in participants with gastroesophageal reflux disease at baseline (n = 172), one week (n = 25), and 4 weeks after baseline (n = 100). Results: Both approaches demonstrated high internal consistency and the ability to discriminate known groups based on reported pain and number of days with symptoms. The idiographic approach exhibited responsiveness, although it was more highly correlated with QOL than the Likert-scaled approach. The Likert-scaled approach had good face validity but demonstrated low reliability compared to the idiographic approach. Conclusions: Both preference-elicitation methods exhibited promise as well as limitations. Future research should focus on increasing the reliability of the Likert-scaled approach, reducing the overlap between the idiographic approach and QOL, and examining the relationship between reliability and responsiveness for a range of illness trajectories.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)197-207
Number of pages11
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume8
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Weights and Measures
Quality of Life
Aptitude
Gastroesophageal Reflux
Reproducibility of Results
Individuality
Pain
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Patient preferences
  • Q-TWiST
  • Quality of life
  • Reliability
  • Responsiveness
  • Validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an extended Q-TWiST analysis. / Schwartz, Carolyn E.; Mathias, Susan D.; Pasta, David J.; Colwell, Hilary H.; Rapkin, Bruce D.; Genderson, M. Wilson; Henning, James M.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1999, p. 197-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schwartz, Carolyn E. ; Mathias, Susan D. ; Pasta, David J. ; Colwell, Hilary H. ; Rapkin, Bruce D. ; Genderson, M. Wilson ; Henning, James M. / A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an extended Q-TWiST analysis. In: Quality of Life Research. 1999 ; Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 197-207.
@article{e8f8c0d832d04f3d9d9dbbb36f65cbff,
title = "A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an extended Q-TWiST analysis",
abstract = "Objective: Patient-centered methods for evaluating treatments require validated preference-elicitation techniques. We describe the validation of two preference-elicitation approaches for use in an Extended Q-TWiST treatment evaluation. The first method was an 'idiographic' approach, which attempts to capture intra-individual differences in the degree to which each domain distracted from and interfered with life activities. The second method, a Likert-scaled approach, asks patients to evaluate the importance of each quality-of-life (QOL) domain. Methods: Patient-reported QOL and preferences were assessed in participants with gastroesophageal reflux disease at baseline (n = 172), one week (n = 25), and 4 weeks after baseline (n = 100). Results: Both approaches demonstrated high internal consistency and the ability to discriminate known groups based on reported pain and number of days with symptoms. The idiographic approach exhibited responsiveness, although it was more highly correlated with QOL than the Likert-scaled approach. The Likert-scaled approach had good face validity but demonstrated low reliability compared to the idiographic approach. Conclusions: Both preference-elicitation methods exhibited promise as well as limitations. Future research should focus on increasing the reliability of the Likert-scaled approach, reducing the overlap between the idiographic approach and QOL, and examining the relationship between reliability and responsiveness for a range of illness trajectories.",
keywords = "Patient preferences, Q-TWiST, Quality of life, Reliability, Responsiveness, Validation",
author = "Schwartz, {Carolyn E.} and Mathias, {Susan D.} and Pasta, {David J.} and Colwell, {Hilary H.} and Rapkin, {Bruce D.} and Genderson, {M. Wilson} and Henning, {James M.}",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1023/A:1008827424392",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "197--207",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an extended Q-TWiST analysis

AU - Schwartz, Carolyn E.

AU - Mathias, Susan D.

AU - Pasta, David J.

AU - Colwell, Hilary H.

AU - Rapkin, Bruce D.

AU - Genderson, M. Wilson

AU - Henning, James M.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Objective: Patient-centered methods for evaluating treatments require validated preference-elicitation techniques. We describe the validation of two preference-elicitation approaches for use in an Extended Q-TWiST treatment evaluation. The first method was an 'idiographic' approach, which attempts to capture intra-individual differences in the degree to which each domain distracted from and interfered with life activities. The second method, a Likert-scaled approach, asks patients to evaluate the importance of each quality-of-life (QOL) domain. Methods: Patient-reported QOL and preferences were assessed in participants with gastroesophageal reflux disease at baseline (n = 172), one week (n = 25), and 4 weeks after baseline (n = 100). Results: Both approaches demonstrated high internal consistency and the ability to discriminate known groups based on reported pain and number of days with symptoms. The idiographic approach exhibited responsiveness, although it was more highly correlated with QOL than the Likert-scaled approach. The Likert-scaled approach had good face validity but demonstrated low reliability compared to the idiographic approach. Conclusions: Both preference-elicitation methods exhibited promise as well as limitations. Future research should focus on increasing the reliability of the Likert-scaled approach, reducing the overlap between the idiographic approach and QOL, and examining the relationship between reliability and responsiveness for a range of illness trajectories.

AB - Objective: Patient-centered methods for evaluating treatments require validated preference-elicitation techniques. We describe the validation of two preference-elicitation approaches for use in an Extended Q-TWiST treatment evaluation. The first method was an 'idiographic' approach, which attempts to capture intra-individual differences in the degree to which each domain distracted from and interfered with life activities. The second method, a Likert-scaled approach, asks patients to evaluate the importance of each quality-of-life (QOL) domain. Methods: Patient-reported QOL and preferences were assessed in participants with gastroesophageal reflux disease at baseline (n = 172), one week (n = 25), and 4 weeks after baseline (n = 100). Results: Both approaches demonstrated high internal consistency and the ability to discriminate known groups based on reported pain and number of days with symptoms. The idiographic approach exhibited responsiveness, although it was more highly correlated with QOL than the Likert-scaled approach. The Likert-scaled approach had good face validity but demonstrated low reliability compared to the idiographic approach. Conclusions: Both preference-elicitation methods exhibited promise as well as limitations. Future research should focus on increasing the reliability of the Likert-scaled approach, reducing the overlap between the idiographic approach and QOL, and examining the relationship between reliability and responsiveness for a range of illness trajectories.

KW - Patient preferences

KW - Q-TWiST

KW - Quality of life

KW - Reliability

KW - Responsiveness

KW - Validation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032794517&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032794517&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1008827424392

DO - 10.1023/A:1008827424392

M3 - Article

C2 - 10472151

AN - SCOPUS:0032794517

VL - 8

SP - 197

EP - 207

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 3

ER -