City Research Online

Measuring patients' views: a bifactor model of distinct patient-reported outcomes in psychosis

Reininghaus, U., McCabe, R. ORCID: 0000-0003-2041-7383, Burns, T., Croudace, T. and Priebe, S. (2011). Measuring patients' views: a bifactor model of distinct patient-reported outcomes in psychosis. Psychological Medicine, 41(2), pp. 277-289. doi: 10.1017/s0033291710000784

Abstract

Background
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely used for evaluating the care of patients with psychosis. Previous studies have reported a considerable overlap in the information captured by measures designed to assess different outcomes. This may impair the validity of PROs and makes an a priori choice of the most appropriate measure difficult when assessing treatment benefits for patients. We aimed to investigate the extent to which four widely established PROs [subjective quality of life (SQOL), needs for care, treatment satisfaction and the therapeutic relationship] provide distinct information independent from this overlap.

Method
Analyses, based on item response modelling, were conducted on measures of SQOL, needs for care, treatment satisfaction and the therapeutic relationship in two large samples of patients with psychosis.

Results
In both samples, a bifactor model matched the data best, suggesting sufficiently strong concept factors to allow for four distinct PRO scales. These were independent from overlap across measures due to a general appraisal tendency of patients for positive or negative ratings and shared domain content. The overlap partially impaired the ability of items to discriminate precisely between patients from lower and higher PRO levels. We found that widely used sum scores were strongly affected by the general appraisal tendency.

Conclusions
Four widely established PROs can provide distinct information independent from overlap across measures. The findings may inform the use and further development of PROs in the evaluation of treatments for psychosis.

Publication Type: Article
Additional Information: This article has been published in a revised form in Psychological Medicine https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710000784. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. © Cambridge University Press 2010.
Subjects: R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
R Medicine > RT Nursing
Departments: School of Health Sciences > Healthcare Services Research & Management
URI: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/21777
[img]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
Download (632kB) | Preview

Export

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

Actions (login required)

Admin Login Admin Login