Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Dec;38(6 Pt 1):1509-27.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00190.x.

Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey

J Lee Hargraves  1 , Ron D Hays, Paul D Cleary
Affiliations

Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey

J Lee Hargraves et al. Health Serv Res. 2003 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the reliability and validity of survey measures used to evaluate health plans and providers from the consumer's perspective.

Data sources: Members (166,074) of 306 U.S. health plans obtained from the National CAHPS Benchmarking Database 2.0, a voluntary effort in which sponsors of CAHPS surveys contribute data to a common repository.

Study design: Members of privately insured health plans serving public and private employers across the United States were surveyed by mail and telephone. Interitem correlations and correlations of items with the composite scores were estimated. Plan-level and internal consistency reliability are estimated. Multivariate associations of composite measures with global ratings are also examined to assess construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis is used to examine the factor structure of the measure.

Findings: Plan-level reliability of all CAHPS 2.0 reporting composites is high with the given sample sizes. Fewer than 170 responses per plan would achieve plan-level reliability of .70 for the five composites. Two of the composites display high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > or = .75), while responses to items in the other three composites were not as internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha from .58 to .62). A five-factor model representing the CAHPS 2.0 composites fits the data better than alternative two- and three-factor models.

Conclusion: Two of the five CAHPS 2.0 reporting composites have high internal consistency and plan-level reliability. The other three summary measures were reliable at the plan level and approach acceptable levels of internal consistency. Some of the items that form the CAHPS 2.0 adult core survey, such as the measure of waiting times in the doctor's office, could be improved. The five-dimension model of consumer assessments best fits the data among the privately insured; therefore, consumer reports using CAHPS surveys should provide feedback using five composites.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research . CAHPS 2.0 Survey and Reporting Kit. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research; 1999.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . From the Pipeline of Health Services Research-CAHPS: The Story of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. Translating Research into Practice Fact Sheet. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000. AHRQ publication no. 00-P014.
    1. Bender RH, Garfinkel SA. “Differences in the Structure of CAHPS Measures among the Medicare Fee-for-Service, Medicare Managed Care, and Privately Insured Populations.”. Health Services Research. 2001;36(3):489–508. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bentler PM. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.”. Psychological Bulletin. 1990;107(2):238–46. - PubMed
    1. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. “Significance Tests and Goodness-of-Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures.”. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88(3):588–606.

Publication types

MeSH terms