在检查患者体验调查中量表表现差异时使用外锚。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Care Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002135
Gary A Abel, Ron D Hays, John L Campbell, Marc N Elliott
{"title":"在检查患者体验调查中量表表现差异时使用外锚。","authors":"Gary A Abel, Ron D Hays, John L Campbell, Marc N Elliott","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To present an example of using vignettes as an external anchor to assess measurement equivalence for patient experience measures.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Evaluating measurement equivalence and differences in scale use is helpful for identifying disparities in patient experience based on patient surveys. External anchors, often in the form of scored vignettes, provide an attractive approach to examining differences in scale use but are not commonly used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed a UK dataset based on the General Practice Patient Survey and a U.S. dataset based on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group survey. A total of 560 White British and 560 Pakistani adults were recruited from various locations across England; 575 Asian American and 505 non-Hispanic White patients were recruited from an internet panel in the United States. Patient encounters and rated the quality of communication using 5 General Practice Patient Survey questions and 3 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using an external anchor in both United States and UK data produced substantial evidence of differential item functioning (DIF). However, an \"internal\" DIF analysis (without an external anchor) produced little evidence of DIF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using an external anchor does not require the assumption made by internal methods that some items do not display between-group DIF. These assumptions may not hold for patient experience items if a single factor, such as extreme or negative response tendency, governs all items equally.</p>","PeriodicalId":18364,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care","volume":" ","pages":"311-316"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of External Anchors When Examining Differences in Scale Performance in Patient Experience Surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Gary A Abel, Ron D Hays, John L Campbell, Marc N Elliott\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To present an example of using vignettes as an external anchor to assess measurement equivalence for patient experience measures.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Evaluating measurement equivalence and differences in scale use is helpful for identifying disparities in patient experience based on patient surveys. External anchors, often in the form of scored vignettes, provide an attractive approach to examining differences in scale use but are not commonly used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed a UK dataset based on the General Practice Patient Survey and a U.S. dataset based on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group survey. A total of 560 White British and 560 Pakistani adults were recruited from various locations across England; 575 Asian American and 505 non-Hispanic White patients were recruited from an internet panel in the United States. Patient encounters and rated the quality of communication using 5 General Practice Patient Survey questions and 3 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using an external anchor in both United States and UK data produced substantial evidence of differential item functioning (DIF). However, an \\\"internal\\\" DIF analysis (without an external anchor) produced little evidence of DIF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using an external anchor does not require the assumption made by internal methods that some items do not display between-group DIF. These assumptions may not hold for patient experience items if a single factor, such as extreme or negative response tendency, governs all items equally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"311-316\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002135\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002135","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:提出一个使用小插曲作为外部锚的例子,以评估患者体验措施的测量等效性。背景:评估量表使用的测量等效性和差异有助于根据患者调查确定患者体验的差异。外部锚,通常以计分的小插曲的形式,提供了一种有吸引力的方法来检查尺度使用的差异,但不常用。方法:我们分析了基于全科病人调查的英国数据集和基于医疗保健提供者和系统临床医生的消费者评估和小组调查的美国数据集。研究人员从英格兰各地招募了560名英国白人和560名巴基斯坦成年人;575名亚裔美国人和505名非西班牙裔白人患者从美国的一个互联网小组中招募。使用5个全科患者调查问题和3个消费者对医疗保健提供者和系统临床医生和小组的评估问题,与患者接触并评估沟通质量。结果:在美国和英国使用外部锚的数据产生了差异项目功能(DIF)的大量证据。然而,“内部”DIF分析(没有外部锚点)几乎没有DIF的证据。结论:使用外部锚不需要内部方法假设某些项目不显示组间DIF。如果一个单一因素,如极端或消极反应倾向,平等地支配所有项目,这些假设可能不适用于患者体验项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Use of External Anchors When Examining Differences in Scale Performance in Patient Experience Surveys.

Objectives: To present an example of using vignettes as an external anchor to assess measurement equivalence for patient experience measures.

Background: Evaluating measurement equivalence and differences in scale use is helpful for identifying disparities in patient experience based on patient surveys. External anchors, often in the form of scored vignettes, provide an attractive approach to examining differences in scale use but are not commonly used.

Methods: We analyzed a UK dataset based on the General Practice Patient Survey and a U.S. dataset based on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group survey. A total of 560 White British and 560 Pakistani adults were recruited from various locations across England; 575 Asian American and 505 non-Hispanic White patients were recruited from an internet panel in the United States. Patient encounters and rated the quality of communication using 5 General Practice Patient Survey questions and 3 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group questions.

Results: Using an external anchor in both United States and UK data produced substantial evidence of differential item functioning (DIF). However, an "internal" DIF analysis (without an external anchor) produced little evidence of DIF.

Conclusions: Using an external anchor does not require the assumption made by internal methods that some items do not display between-group DIF. These assumptions may not hold for patient experience items if a single factor, such as extreme or negative response tendency, governs all items equally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Care
Medical Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
228
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Rated as one of the top ten journals in healthcare administration, Medical Care is devoted to all aspects of the administration and delivery of healthcare. This scholarly journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers documenting the most current developments in the rapidly changing field of healthcare. This timely journal reports on the findings of original investigations into issues related to the research, planning, organization, financing, provision, and evaluation of health services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信