Using a retrospective pretest instead of a conventional pretest is replacing biases: a qualitative study of cognitive processes underlying responses to thentest items.

BACKGROUND: The thentest design aims to detect and control for recalibration response shift. This design assumes (1) more consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying patients' quality of life (QoL) between posttest and thentest assessments than between posttest and pretest assessments; and (2) consistency in the time frame and description of functioning referenced at pretest and thentest. Our objective is to utilize cognitive interviewing to qualitatively examine both assumptions. METHODS: We conducted think-aloud interviews with 24 patients with cancer prior to and after radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying their assessment of seven EORTC QLQ-C30 items at pretest, posttest and thentest. We used an analytic scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin and Schwartz that yielded five cognitive processes. We subsequently used this input for quantitative analysis of count data. RESULTS: Contrary to expectation, the number of dissimilar cognitive processes between posttest and thentest was generally larger than between pretest and posttest across patients. Further, patients considered a range of time frames when answering the thentest questions. Moreover, patients' description at the thentest of their pretest functioning was often not similar to that which was noted at pretest. Items referring to trouble taking a short walk, overall health and QoL were most often violating the assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Both assumptions underlying the thentest design appear not to be supported by the patients' cognitive processes. Replacing the conventional pretest-posttest design with the thentest design may simply be replacing one set of biases with another.

Opening the black box of cancer patients' quality-of-life change assessments: a think-aloud study examining the cognitive processes underlying responses to transition items.

Transition items are a popular approach to determine the clinical significance of patient-reported change. These items assume that patients (1) arrive at a change evaluation by comparing posttest and pretest functioning, and (2) accurately recall their pretest functioning. We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 25 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy. Two researchers independently analysed their responses using an analysis scheme based on cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin and Schwartz. In 112 of the 164 responses to transition items, patients compared current and prior functioning. However, in 104 of these responses, patients did not refer to their functioning at pretest and/or posttest according to transition design's first assumption, but rather used a variety of time frames. Additionally, in 79 responses, the time frame employed and/or description of prior functioning provided differed from those employed in the corresponding pretest items. Transition design's second assumption was therefore not in line with the patients' cognitive processes. Our findings demonstrate that in interpreting transition assessments, one needs to be aware that patients provide change assessments, which are not necessarily based on the cognitive processes intended by researchers and health care providers.

A 'short walk' is longer before radiotherapy than afterwards: a qualitative study questioning the baseline and follow-up design.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have indirectly demonstrated changes in the content of respondents' QoL appraisal process over time by revealing response-shift effects. This is the first known study to qualitatively examine the assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time. Specific objectives are to examine whether the content of each distinct cognitive process underlying QoL appraisal is (dis)similar over time and whether patterns of (dis)similarity can be discerned across and within patients and/or items. METHODS: We conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 50 cancer patients prior to and following radiotherapy to elicit cognitive processes underlying the assessment of 7 EORTC QLQ-C30 items. Qualitative analysis of patients' responses at baseline and follow-up was independently carried out by 2 researchers by means of an analysis scheme based on the cognitive process models of Tourangeau et al. and Rapkin & Schwartz. RESULTS: The interviews yielded 342 comparisons of baseline and follow-up responses, which were analyzed according to the five cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal. The content of comprehension/frame of reference changed in 188 comparisons; retrieval/sampling strategy in 246; standards of comparison in 152; judgment/combinatory algorithm in 113; and reporting and response selection in 141 comparisons. Overall, in 322 comparisons of responses (94%) the content of at least one cognitive component changed over time. We could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity since the content of each of the cognitive processes differed across and within patients and/or items. Additionally, differences found in the content of a cognitive process for one item was not found to influence dissimilarity in the content of that same cognitive process for the subsequent item. CONCLUSIONS: The assumption of consistency in the content of the cognitive processes underlying QoL appraisal over time was not found to be in line with the cognitive processes described by the respondents. Additionally, we could not discern patterns of (dis)similarity across and within patients and/or items. In building on cognitive process models and the response shift literature, this study contributes to a better understanding of patient-reported QoL appraisal over time.

Somatically ill persons' self-nominated quality of life domains: review of the literature and guidelines for future studies.

OBJECTIVE: To review which domains somatically ill persons nominate as constituting their QoL. Specific objective is to examine whether the method of enquiry affect these domains. METHODS: We conducted two literature searches in the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL and Psychinfo for qualitative studies examining patients' self-defined QoL domains using (1) SEIQoL and (2) study-specific questions. For each database, two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved abstracts and three researchers subsequently classified all QoL domains. RESULTS: Thirty-six eligible papers were identified: 27 studies using the SEIQoL, and nine presenting data derived from study-specific questions. The influence of the method of enquiry on patients' self-nominated QoL domains appears limited: most domains were presented in both types of studies, albeit with different frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive overview of somatically ill persons' self-nominated QoL domains. However, limitations inherent to reviewing qualitative studies (e.g., the varying level of abstraction of patients' self-defined QoL domains), limitations of the included studies and limitations inherent to the review process, hinder cross-study comparisons. Therefore, we provide guidelines to address shortcomings of qualitative reports amenable to improvement and to stimulate further improvement of conducting and reporting qualitative research aimed at exploring respondents' self-nominated QoL domains.