Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39143446›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

Response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data: a qualitative study.

Øyvind Grindheim, Andrew McAleavey, Valentina Iversen, Christian Moltu, Kristin Tømmervik, Hege Govasmark, Heidi Brattland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

7 authors.

Øyvind GrindheimDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. oyvind.k.grindheim@ntnu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8299-6897
Andrew McAleaveyDistrict General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5986-2033
Valentina IversenDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Christian MoltuDistrict General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-6383
Kristin TømmervikClinic of Substance Use and Addiction Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Hege GovasmarkClinic of Substance Use and Addiction Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Heidi BrattlandDepartment of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4872-4652

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify factors that influence response processes for patients providing quantitative self-report data. Secondly, due to the lack of integrative and explanatory models in this area, to develop a model of patients' response processes that can guide what to look for when considering validity evidence and interpreting scores on individual items.

methodsParticipants (n = 13) were recruited from a specialized substance use disorder treatment clinic and interviewed while responding to items from a clinical feedback system implemented for routine outcome monitoring in that setting. The interview approach was based on cognitive interviewing. Data collection and analysis were inspired by a grounded theory approach.

resultsWe identified several variables that influenced the participants' response processes. The variables were organized into five categories: context-related variables; item-related variables; response base variables; reasoning strategies; and response selection strategies. We also found that the participants' responses for many items were affected by different aspects of the response process in ways that are relevant to interpretation but not necessarily discernible from the numerical scores alone, and we developed response categories to capture this.

conclusionThe findings suggest that patients providing quantitative self-report data encounter conditions in the response process that challenge and influence their ability to convey meaning and accuracy. This results in responses that for many of the items reflect messages important for interpretation and follow-up, even if it does not appear from the numerical scores alone. The proposed model may be a useful tool when developing items, assessing validity, and interpreting responses.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchSelf ReportAdultFemaleGrounded TheoryHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSubstance-Related DisordersClinical feedbackCognitive interviewingQualitative researchResponse processRoutine outcome monitoringSelf-report measure

Identifiers

PMID39143446
PMCPMC11541247

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.