Psychometric assessment of the consideRATE questions, a new measure of serious illness experience, with an online simulation study. Issue 7 (July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Saunders, Catherine H.; Durand, Marie-Anne; Kirkland, Kathryn B.; MacMartin, Meredith A.; Barnato, Amber E.; Elwyn, Glyn
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 105:Issue 7(2022)
• Page Start: 2581
• Page End: 2589
• Publication Date: 2022-07
• Subjects: Serious illness -- Patient-reported outcome measure -- Patient-reported experience measure -- Psychometric assessment -- Survey; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.01.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To assess the psychometric properties of the consideRATE questions, a measure of serious illness experience. Methods: We recruited people at least 50 years old via paid panels online, with US-Census-based quotas. We randomized participants to a patient experience story at two time points. Participants completed a series of measures, including the consideRATE questions. We assessed convergent (Pearson's correlation), discriminative (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons) and divergent (Pearson's correlation) validity. We also assessed intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) and responsiveness to change (t-tests). Results: We included 809 individuals in our analysis. We established convergent validity (r = 0.77; p < 0.001); discriminative validity (bad/neutral stories [mean diff=0.4; p < 0.001]; neutral/ good stories [mean diff=1.3; p < 0.001]) and moderate divergent validity (r = 0.57; p < 0.001). We established sensitivity to change in all stories (bad/good [mean diff=1.52; p < 0.001]; good/bad [mean diff= −1.68; p < 0.001]; neutral/bad [mean diff= −0.57; p < 0.001]; good/neutral [mean diff= −1.11; p < 0.001]; neutral/good [mean diff= 1.1; p < 0.001]) but one (bad/neutral [mean diff= 0.4; p < 0.07]). Intra-rater reliability was demonstrated between time points (r = 0.77; p < 0.001). Conclusions: the consideRATE questions were reliable and valid in a simulated online test. Practice implications: the consideRATE questions may be a practical way to measure serious illness experience and the effectiveness of interventions to improve it. Highlights: Care of people who are seriously ill needs improvement. Our measure of serious illness experience is valid and reliable in a simulated online test. The consideRATE questions may be useful to assess and improve practice and test interventions for people who are seriously ill.