Psychometric Evaluation of a Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ) for Outpatient Appointments: Analysis Using Data from a U.K. National Health Service Audiology Department

Abstract

Background The Audiology Department at the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust (RSFT), United Kingdom, developed a patient experience questionnaire (PEQ) to assess and compare patients' experiences of attending a wide range of appointments (e.g., hearing assessment, hearing aid fitting, hearing aid review, tinnitus therapy, balance assessment, and balance rehabilitation).

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the PEQ. The PEQ is a unidimensional instrument with four items that assess a patient's experience of an outpatient appointment.

Research Design Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Study Sample Patients attending appointments for audiology services at RSFT between January and March 2020.

Data Collection and Analysis All patients (n = 656) attending appointments for audiology services at RSFT during randomly selected days between January and March 2020 were given the questionnaire to complete themselves (PEQ-self) or to complete on their child's behalf (PEQ-parent). The factor structures for the PEQ-self and PEQ-parent were assessed separately, using confirmatory factor analysis. A multiple-causes, multiple-indicators (MIMIC) model was fitted to explore potential bias due to gender and age. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α. The bivariate correlations between PEQ scores and other variables were evaluated using the nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficient. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed using the distribution of total scores.

Results Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that a one-factor model gave a close fit to the data for both the self and parent versions. Cronbach's α for the total score was 0.77 for the PEQ-self and 0.86 for the PEQ-parent. The MIMIC model showed no significant direct effects of age or gender for either version.

Conclusions Both the PEQ-self and PEQ-parent questionnaire can be reliably used to measure patients' experiences of outpatient audiology appointments. Future studies should aim to assess the psychometric properties of the PEQ-self and PEQ-parent for a range of outpatient appointments other than audiology.

Keywords

psychometric - questionnaire - audiology - patient experience

• References

• 1 Chow A, Mayer EK, Darzi AW, Athanasiou T. Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery 2009; 146 (03) 435-443
• 2 Cucchiaro S, Delgaudine M, Princen F, Coucke P. OC-0194 Continuous improvement by crossing patient satisfaction surveys, adverse events and complaints. Radiother Oncol 2019; 133: S100-S1
• 3 Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 97
• 4 Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47 (09) 1351-1359
• 5 Aazh H. Patients' experience of motivational interviewing for hearing aid use: a qualitative study embedded within a pilot randomised controlled trial. Journal of Phonetics & Audiology. 2016; 2 (01) 1-13
• 6 Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32 (1-2): 51-63
• 7 Male L, Noble A, Atkinson J, Marson T. Measuring patient experience: a systematic review to evaluate psychometric properties of patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for emergency care service provision. Int J Qual Health Care 2017; 29 (03) 314-326
• 8 Hudak PL, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C, McKeever PD, Wright JG. Testing a new theory of patient satisfaction with treatment outcome. Med Care 2004; 42 (08) 726-739
• 9 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear 1991; 12 (05) 355-357
• 10 Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122 (02) 143-148
• 11 Morris AE, Lutman ME, Yardley L. Measuring outcome from vestibular rehabilitation, part II: refinement and validation of a new self-report measure. Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (01) 24-37
• 12 Bergeson SC, Gray J, Ehrmantraut LA, Laibson T, Hays RD. Comparing web-based with mail survey administration of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) clinician and group survey. Prim Health Care 2013; 3: 3
• 13 Darby C, Hays RD, Kletke P. Development and evaluation of the CAHPS hospital survey. Health Serv Res 2005; 40 (6 Pt 2): 1973-1976
• 14 Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S, Roberts M. et al. Patients evaluate their hospital care: a national survey. Health Aff (Millwood) 1991; 10 (04) 254-267
• 15 Bastemeijer CM, Boosman H, Zandbelt L, Timman R, de Boer D, Hazelzet JA. Patient Experience Monitor (PEM): the development of new short-form Picker experience questionnaires for hospital patients with a wide range of literacy levels. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2020; 11: 221-230
• 16 Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care 2002; 14 (05) 353-358
• 17 Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Reeves R, Bruster S, Richards N. Properties of the Picker Patient Experience questionnaire in a randomized controlled trial of long versus short form survey instruments. J Public Health Med 2003; 25 (03) 197-201
• 18 Jung EK, Srivastava K, Abouljoud M, Keller R, Okoroha K, Davis J. Does Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey correlate with traditional metrics of patient satisfaction? The challenge of measuring patient pain control and satisfaction in total joint replacement. Arthroplast Today 2018; 4 (04) 470-474
• 19 Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Scherer F, Peer L. et al. Satisfaction of patients hospitalised in psychiatric hospitals: a randomised comparison of two psychiatric-specific and one generic satisfaction questionnaires. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6: 108
• 20 Hendriks M, Dahlhaus-Booij J, Plass AM. Clients' perspective on quality of audiology care: Development of the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) 'Audiology Care' for measuring client experiences. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (01) 8-15
• 21 Aazh H, Swanepoel W, Moore BCJ. Telehealth tinnitus therapy during the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK: uptake and related factors. Int J Audiol 2020; (Oct): 1-6
• 22 Wosik J, Fudim M, Cameron B. et al. Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (06) 957-962
• 23 Compton J, Glass N, Fowler T. Evidence of selection bias and non-response bias in patient satisfaction surveys. Iowa Orthop J 2019; 39 (01) 195-201
• 24 BSA. Pure-Tone Air-Conduction and Bone Conduction Threshold Audiometry with and Without Masking: Recommended Procedure. UK: British Society of Audiology; 2018
• 25 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL. et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 2
• 26 Beattie M, Shepherd A, Howieson B. Do the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care?–an integrative review. J Res Nurs 2013; 18 (04) 288-304
• 27 Vranceanu AM, Ring D. Factors associated with patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (09) 1504-1508
• 28 Steine S, Finset A, Laerum E. A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. Fam Pract 2001; 18 (04) 410-418
• 29 Kumar P, Follen M, Huang CC, Cathey A. Using laddering interviews and hierarchical value mapping to gain insights into improving patient experience in the hospital: a systematic literature review. J Patient Exp 2020; 7 (06) 1740-1747
• 30 Oben P. Understanding the patient experience: a conceptual framework. J Patient Exp 2020; 7 (06) 906-910
• 31 Choi BCK, Pak AWP. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis 2005; 2 (01) A13
• 32 Hunt DM, Magruder S, Bolon DS. Questionnaire format bias: when are juxtaposed scales appropriate: a call for further research. Psychol Rep 1995; 77 (3 Pt 1): 931-941
• 33 Groen W, Unal E, Nørgaard M. et al. Comparing different revisions of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire to reduce the ceiling effect and improve score distribution: data from a multi-center European cohort study of children with JIA. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2010; 8: 16
• 34 Chun S, Stark S, Kim ES, Chernyshenko OS. MIMIC methods for detecting DIF among multiple groups: exploring a new sequential-free baseline procedure. Appl Psychol Meas 2016; 40 (07) 486-499
• 35 Hoelter J. The analysis of covariance structures. Sociol Methods Res 1983; 11: 325-344
• 36 Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334
• 37 Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1-55
• 38 Bentler PM, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 588-606
• 39 Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990; 107 (02) 238-246
• 40 Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008; 6 (01) 53-60
• 41 Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR. et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (01) 34-42
• 42 Muthen LK, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide. Eighth edition.. Muthén BO. editor: Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2017
• 43 Corp I. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 25.0 edition.. New York, NY: IBM Corp.; ; Released 2017
• 44 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. TX, USA: StataCorp LP; 2013
• 45 Badran K, Bunstone D, Arya AK, Suryanarayanan R, Mackinnon N. Patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a 14-year experience. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27 (05) 659-666
• 46 Rasmussen J, Olsen SØ, Nielsen LH. Evaluation of long-term patient satisfaction and experience with the Baha® bone conduction implant. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (03) 194-199
• 47 Aazh H, Prasher D, Nanchahal K, Moore BCJ. Hearing-aid use and its determinants in the UK National Health Service: a cross-sectional study at the Royal Surrey County Hospital. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (03) 152-161
• 48 Aazh H, Moore BCJ, Lammaing K, Cropley M. Tinnitus and hyperacusis therapy in a UK National Health Service audiology department: patients' evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (09) 514-522
• 49 Aazh H, Moore BCJ. Usefulness of self-report questionnaires for psychological assessment of patients with tinnitus and hyperacusis and patients' views of the questionnaires. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (07) 489-498
• 50 Aazh H, Bryant C, Moore BCJ. Patients' perspectives about the acceptability and effectiveness of audiologist-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for tinnitus and/or hyperacusis rehabilitation. Am J Audiol 2019; 28 (04) 973-985
• 51 Kotaniemi JT, Hassi J, Kataja M. et al. Does non-responder bias have a significant effect on the results in a postal questionnaire study?. Eur J Epidemiol 2001; 17 (09) 809-817
• 52 Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res 2003; 38 (6 Pt 1): 1509-1527
• 53 Reynolds-Keefer L, Johnson R, Dickenson T, McFadden L. Validity issues in the use of pictorial Likert scales. Studies in learning, evaluation. Innovation and Development. 2009; 6 (03) 15-24
• 54 Stange M, Barry A, Smyth J, Olson K. Effects of smiley face scales on visual processing of satisfaction questions in web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2018; 36 (06) 756-766
• 55 Finstad K. Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: evidence against 5-point scales. J Usability Stud 2010; 5 (03) 104-110