ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014
Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic Azithromycin as an Adjunct to Non-Surgical Subgingival Instrumentation in the Treatment of Stage III/IV, Grade C Periodontitis: 12-Month Clinical, Microbiological and Cytokine Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Trial
- Satisfaction with modes of telemedicine delivery during COVID-19: A randomized, single-blind, parallel group, noninferiority trial.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2022Trial
- Synthetic Content Validation of Pediatric Trust Instruments Using Persona-Driven Large Language Models: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- SurveyNet: A Unified Deep Learning Framework for OCR and OMR-Based Survey Digitization.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Effects of On-Site Supportive Communication Training in Oncology: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Assessing >3500 Patient Experiences.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Assessing the feasibility of a clinical trial to evaluate an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care in chronic pain management: a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Patients' perspectives on telephone outpatients during a pandemic.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Statistical Methods for Item Reduction in a Representative Lifestyle Questionnaire: Pilot Questionnaire Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Income trajectories and self-rated health status in the UK.SSM - population health · 2022Article
- Exploring and Characterizing Patient Multibehavior Engagement Trails and Patient Behavior Preference Patterns in Pathway-Based mHealth Hypertension Self-Management: Analysis of Use Data.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Factors Associated With Patient Satisfaction Measured Using a Guttman-Type Scale.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Clinician and computer: a study on patient perceptions of artificial intelligence in skeletal radiography.BMJ health & care informatics · 2020Article
- Differential Diagnosis between Chronic versus Aggressive Periodontitis and Staging of Aggressive Periodontitis: A Cross-sectional Study.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA widely discussed design issue in patient satisfaction questionnaires is the optimal length and labelling of the answering scale. The aim of the present study was to compare intra-individually the answers on two response scales to five general questions evaluating patients' perception of hospital care.
methodsBetween November 2011 and January 2012, all in-hospital patients at a Swiss University Hospital received a patient satisfaction questionnaire on an adjectival scale with three to four labelled categories (LS) and five redundant questions displayed on an 11-point end-anchored numeric scale (NS). The scales were compared concerning ceiling effect, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), individual item answers (Spearman's rank correlation), and concerning overall satisfaction by calculating an overall percentage score (sum of all answers related to the maximum possible sum).
resultsThe response rate was 41% (2957/7158), of which 2400 (81%) completely filled out all questions. Baseline characteristics of the responders and non-responders were similar. Floor and ceiling effect were high on both response scales, but more pronounced on the LS than on the NS. Cronbach's alpha was higher on the NS than on the LS. There was a strong individual item correlation between both answering scales in questions regarding the intent to return, quality of treatment and the judgement whether the patient was treated with respect and dignity, but a lower correlation concerning satisfactory information transfer by physicians or nurses, where only three categories were available in the LS. The overall percentage score showed a comparable distribution, but with a wider spread of lower satisfaction in the NS.
conclusionsSince the longer scale did not substantially reduce the ceiling effect, the type of questions rather than the type of answering scale could be addressed with a focus on specific questions about concrete situations instead of general questions. Moreover, the low correlation in questions about information provision suggests that only three possible response choices are insufficient. Further investigations are needed to find a more sensitive scale discriminating high-end ratings. Otherwise, a longitudinal within-hospital or a cross-sectional between-hospital comparison of patient care is questionable.
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.