Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2010
The impact of next and back buttons on time to complete and measurement reliability in computer-based surveys.
Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement of PROMIS Preference (PROPr) scores generated from the PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS-16.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Comparing Health Survey Data Cost and Quality Between Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Ipsos' KnowledgePanel: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- A Web-Based Audio Computer-Assisted Self-interview Application With Illustrated Pictures to Administer a Hepatitis B Survey Among a Myanmar-Born Community in Perth, Australia: Development and User Acceptance Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Digital Health and Digital Learning Experiences Across Speech-Language Pathology, Phoniatrics, and Otolaryngology: Interdisciplinary Survey Study.JMIR medical education · 2021Article
- Comparative Analysis of Paper-Based and Web-Based Versions of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) Questionnaire in Breast Cancer Patients: Randomized Crossover Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Evolution of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Their Role in Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Trials.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2017Review
- Development of the life impact burn recovery evaluation (LIBRE) profile: assessing burn survivors' social participation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
- Introduction to patient-reported outcome item banks: issues in minority aging research.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2013Article
- Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology.Neurology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of including next and back buttons on response burden and measurement reliability of computer-based surveys.
methodsA sample of 807 participants (mean age of 53; 64% women, 83% non-Hispanic white; 81% some college or college graduates) from the YouGov Polimetrix panel was administered 56 items assessing performance of social/role activities and 56 items measuring satisfaction with social/role activities. Participants were randomly assigned to either (1) automatic advance to the next question with no opportunity to go back (auto/no back); (2) automatic advance to the next questions with an opportunity to go back (auto/back); (3) next button to go to the next question with no opportunity to go back (next/no back); or (4) next button to go to the next question with an opportunity to go back (next/back).
resultsWe found no difference in missing data, internal consistency reliability, and domain scores by group. Time to complete the survey was about 50% longer when respondents were required to use a next button to go on.
conclusionsGiven the similarity in missing data, reliability and mean scale scores with or without use of the next button, we recommend automatic advancement to the next item with the option to go back to the previous item.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.