| Title |
The Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item questionnaire: equivalence, reliability, validity, and feasibility of the touch-screen administration versus the paper-and-pencil version
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s101619 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fausto Salaffi, Marco Di Carlo, Marina Carotti, Sonia Farah, Marwin Gutierrez |
| Abstract |
Over the last few years, there has been a shift toward a more patient-centered perspective of the disease by adopting patient-reported outcomes. Touch-screen formats are increasingly being used for data collection in routine care and research. The aim of this study is to examine the equivalence, reliability, validity and respondent preference for a computerized touch-screen version of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item (PsAID-12) questionnaire in comparison with the original paper-and-pencil version, in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). One hundred and fifty-nine patients with PsA completed both the touch screen- and the conventional paper-and-pencil administered PsAID-12 questionnaire. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients. Spearman's rho correlation coefficient was used to test convergent validity of the touch screen format of PsAID-12, while receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to test discriminant validity. In order to assess the patient's preference, the participants filled in an additional questionnaire. The time taken to complete both formats was measured. A high concordance between the responses to the two modes of the PsAID-12 tested was found, with no significant mean differences. Intraclass correlation coefficients between data obtained for touch-screen and paper versions ranged from 0.801 to 0.962. There was a very high degree of correlation between the touch-screen format of PsAID-12 and composite disease activity indices (all at a P level <0.0001), Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Physician Assessment of disease activity. The discriminatory power of the touch-screen format of PsAID-12, assessed using the minimal disease activity - Outcome Measurements in Rheumatology Clinical Trials criteria, was very good, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.937 and a resulting cutoff value of 2.5. The touch-screen questionnaire was readily accepted and preferred. The mean time spent for completing the questionnaire on touch screen was 2 minutes and on paper was 2.7 minutes. The touch-screen mode of administration of PsAID-12 can be a feasible and suitable alternative to the paper-and-pencil mode for the assessment of patients with PsA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,343,132
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#159
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,845
of 314,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#5
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.