Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33661454›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2021

The role of response domain and scale label in the quantitative interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure response options.

Tessa Peasgood, Jen-Yu Chang, Robina Mir, Clara Mukuria, Philip A Powell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Multinational stakeholder engagement to inform future development and refinement of the EuroQol toddler and infant populations (EQ-TIPS).The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tessa PeasgoodSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Jen-Yu ChangSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Robina MirNIHR Research Design Service Yorkshire and Humber, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Clara MukuriaSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Philip A PowellSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. p.a.powell@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1169-3431
University of Sheffield · GBThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber 135885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUncertainties exist in how respondents interpret response options in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly across different domains and for different scale labels. The current study assessed how respondents quantitatively interpret common response options.

methodsMembers of the general public were recruited to this study via an online panel, stratified by age, gender, and having English as a first language. Participants completed background questions and were randomised to answer questions on one of three domains (i.e. loneliness (negatively phrased), happiness or activities (positively phrased)). Participants were asked to provide quantitative interpretations of response options (e.g. how many times per week is equal to "often") and to order several common response options (e.g. occasionally, sometimes) on a 0-100 slider scale. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were used to assess whether response options were interpreted consistently across domains and respondent characteristics.

resultsData from 1377 participants were analysed. There was general consistency in quantifying the number of times over the last 7 days to which each response option referred. Response options were consistently assigned a lower value in the loneliness than happiness and activities domains. Individual differences, such as age and English as a second language, explained some significant variation in responses, but less than domain.

conclusionMembers of the public quantify common response options in a similar way, but their quantification is not equivalent across domains or every type of respondent. Recommendations for the use of certain scale labels over others in PROM development are provided.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultFemaleHumansLanguageMaleQuality of LifeHealth-related quality of lifePatient reported outcomes (PROs)QuestionnairesResponse optionsScale developmentScale label

Identifiers

PMID33661454
PMCPMC8233274
OpenAlexW3135803064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.