Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(02): 082-091
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736575
Research Article

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

Hashir Aazh 
1   Audiology Department, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford, United Kingdom
,
Judith Ballinger
1   Audiology Department, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford, United Kingdom
,
Chloe Hayes
2   Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Psychometric and Measurement Lab, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Anna Pepler
1   Audiology Department, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford, United Kingdom
,
Karen Lammaing
1   Audiology Department, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford, United Kingdom
,
Brian C. J. Moore
3   Cambridge Hearing Group, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Ali A. Danesh
4   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
,
Silia Vitoratou 
2   Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Psychometric and Measurement Lab, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 27 May 2021

Accepted: 26 August 2021

Article published online:
05 May 2022

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32 (1-2): 51-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122 (02) 143-148
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 BSA. Pure-Tone Air-Conduction and Bone Conduction Threshold Audiometry with and Without Masking: Recommended Procedure. UK: British Society of Audiology; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Vranceanu AM, Ring D. Factors associated with patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (09) 1504-1508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Oben P. Understanding the patient experience: a conceptual framework. J Patient Exp 2020; 7 (06) 906-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Choi BCK, Pak AWP. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis 2005; 2 (01) A13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hoelter J. The analysis of covariance structures. Sociol Methods Res 1983; 11: 325-344
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bentler PM, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 588-606
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990; 107 (02) 238-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Muthen LK, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide. Eighth edition.. Muthén BO. editor: Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2017
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Corp I. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 25.0 edition.. New York, NY: IBM Corp.; ; Released 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 44 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. TX, USA: StataCorp LP; 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Finstad K. Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: evidence against 5-point scales. J Usability Stud 2010; 5 (03) 104-110
    Google Scholar