Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34542458›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of investigation in health, psychology and education2021

The Use of Single-Item Ratings Versus Traditional Multiple-Item Questionnaires to Assess Mood and Health.

Joris C Verster, Elena Sandalova, Johan Garssen, Gillian Bruce

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Post-diagnosis cannabis use and its association with health status and quality of life in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Joris C VersterDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6455-2096
Elena SandalovaDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johan GarssenDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8678-9182
Gillian BruceDivision of Psychology and Social Work, School of Education and Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2593-1488
Utrecht University · NLUniversity of the West of Scotland · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collecting real-world evidence via 'at home' assessments in ambulatory patients or healthy volunteers is becoming increasingly important, both for research purposes and in clinical practice. However, given the mobile technology that is frequently used for these assessments, concise assessments are preferred. The current study compared single-item ratings with multiple-item subscale scores of the same construct, by calculating the corresponding Bland and Altman 95% limits of agreement interval. The analysis showed that single-item ratings are usually in good agreement with assessments of their corresponding subscale. In the case of more complex multimodal constructs, single-item assessments were much less often in agreement with multiple-item questionnaire outcomes. The use of single-item assessments is advocated as they more often incorporate assessments of all aspects of a certain construct (including the presence, severity, and impact of the construct under investigation) compared to composite symptom scores.

Indexed as

assessmentmobile assessmentsquestionnairesreal-world evidencesinge item ratings

Identifiers

PMID34542458
PMCPMC8314344
OpenAlexW3130457755

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.