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
Review
. 2018 Sep 6:2:41.
doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0056-3. eCollection 2017.

Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures

Katharine Gries  1 , Pamela Berry  1 , Magdalena Harrington  2 , Mabel Crescioni  3 , Mira Patel  3 , Katja Rudell  4 , Shima Safikhani  5 , Sheryl Pease  6 , Margaret Vernon  5
Affiliations
Review

Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures

Katharine Gries et al. J Patient Rep Outcomes. .

Abstract

Background: In the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, little documentation is provided on the justification of response scale selection. The selection of response scales is often based on the developers' preferences or therapeutic area conventions. The purpose of this literature review was to assemble evidence on the selection of response scale types, in PRO instruments. The literature search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases. Secondary search was conducted on supplementary sources including reference lists of key articles, websites for major PRO-related working groups and consortia, and conference abstracts. Evidence on the selection of verbal rating scale (VRS), numeric rating scale (NRS), and visual analogue scale (VAS) was collated based on pre-determined categories pertinent to the development of PRO instruments: reliability, validity, and responsiveness of PRO instruments, select therapeutic areas, and optimal number of response scale options.

Results: A total of 6713 abstracts were reviewed; 186 full-text references included. There was a lack of consensus in the literature on the justification for response scale type based on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a PRO instrument. The type of response scale varied within the following therapeutic areas: asthma, cognition, depression, fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis, and oncology. The optimal number of response options depends on the construct, but quantitative evidence suggests that a 5-point or 6-point VRS was more informative and discriminative than fewer response options.

Conclusions: The VRS, NRS, and VAS are acceptable response scale types in the development of PRO instruments. The empirical evidence on selection of response scales was inconsistent and, therefore, more empirical evidence needs to be generated. In the development of PRO instruments, it is important to consider the measurement properties and therapeutic area and provide justification for the selection of response scale type.

Keywords: Literature review; Patient-reported outcome; Response option; Response scales.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Outline of search procedures and data extraction. PRO: patient-reported outcome
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, Kerns RD, Stucki G, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Carr DB, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dionne R, Galer BS, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Kramer LD, Manning DC, Martin S, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robbins W, Robinson JP, Rothman M, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Wernicke J, Witter J, IMMPACT Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: Immpact recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu AH, Zeiger R, Sorkness C, Mahr T, Ostrom N, Burgess S, Rosenzweig JC, Manjunath R. Development and cross-sectional validation of the childhood asthma control test. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2007;119(4):817–825. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.12.662. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Matza LS, Patrick DL, Riley AW, Alexander JJ, Rajmil L, Pleil AM, Bullinger M. Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: Report of the ispor pro good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value in Health. 2013;16(4):461–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Safikhani, S., Gries, K. S., Trudeau, J. J., Reasner, D., Rudell, K., Coons, S. J., Bush, E. N., Hanlon, J., Abraham, L., & Vernon, M. (Under review) response scale selection in adult pain measures: Results from a literature review. Journa of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 10.1186/s41687-018-0053-6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Naegeli, A. N., Hanlon, J., Gries, K. S., Safikhani, S., Ryden, A., Patel, M., Crescioni, M., & Vernon, M. (Under review) literature review to characterize the empirical basis for response scale selection in pediatric populations. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 10.1186/s41687-018-0051-8. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources