Reliability of short form-36 in an Internet- and a pen-and-paper version.
Saved in:
| Title: | Reliability of short form-36 in an Internet- and a pen-and-paper version. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Basnov, Maja1 (AUTHOR), Kongsved, Sissel Marie1 (AUTHOR), Bech, Per2 (AUTHOR), Hjollund, Niels Henrik1,3,4 (AUTHOR) hehjo@ringamt.dk |
| Source: | Informatics for Health & Social Care. Mar2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p53-58. 6p. 3 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Internet questionnaires, Test validity, Reliability (Personality trait), Research methodology, Medical research, Quantitative research |
| Abstract: | Use of Internet versions of questionnaires may have several advantages in clinical and epidemiological research, but we know little about if Internet versions differ with respect to validity and reliability. We aimed to compare Internet- and pen-and-paper versions of short form-36 (SF-36) with respect to test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Women referred to mammography (n = 782) were randomised to receive either a paper version with a prepaid return envelope or a guideline on how to fill in the Internet version. A subgroup was asked to answer the questionnaire once again in the alternative version. Test-retest reliability was assessed by the intra-class correlation coefficient. Internal consistency was calculated as Cronbach's alpha. The between-version test-retest reliability for the eight subscales were between 0.63 and 0.92. Cronbach's alpha for the two versions were all between 0.75 and 0.93 with minor differences between the Internet- and the pen-and-paper version. We found little or no evidence of a difference in test-retest reliability and internal consistency when we compared an Internet- and a pen-and-paper version of SF-36. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Informatics for Health & Social Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Use of Internet versions of questionnaires may have several advantages in clinical and epidemiological research, but we know little about if Internet versions differ with respect to validity and reliability. We aimed to compare Internet- and pen-and-paper versions of short form-36 (SF-36) with respect to test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Women referred to mammography (n = 782) were randomised to receive either a paper version with a prepaid return envelope or a guideline on how to fill in the Internet version. A subgroup was asked to answer the questionnaire once again in the alternative version. Test-retest reliability was assessed by the intra-class correlation coefficient. Internal consistency was calculated as Cronbach's alpha. The between-version test-retest reliability for the eight subscales were between 0.63 and 0.92. Cronbach's alpha for the two versions were all between 0.75 and 0.93 with minor differences between the Internet- and the pen-and-paper version. We found little or no evidence of a difference in test-retest reliability and internal consistency when we compared an Internet- and a pen-and-paper version of SF-36. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 17538157 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/17538150902779527 |
