Validation of Portuguese-translated computer touch-screen questionnaires in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, compared with paper formats
Rheumatology International, ISSN: 1437-160X, Vol: 35, Issue: 12, Page: 2029-2035
2015
- 13Citations
- 39Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes8
- CrossRef2
- Policy Citations5
- Policy Citation5
- Captures39
- Readers39
- 39
Article Description
The aim of this paper was to assess the validity and reliability of the touch-screen standard Portuguese version of the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs), compared with paper format, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scale (ASQoL), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and visual analogue scales (VAS) measuring pain and burden of disease. Adult patients with RA and spondyloarthritis attending the Portuguese Institute of Rheumatology were recruited from March 2013 to January 2014. Patients filled the paper and touch-screen formats of the standard Portuguese versions of the PROs. Two groups of VAS were used, RA and psoriatic arthritis (Global VAS) and another specific for spondyloarthrites (Spa-VAS). Paper questionnaires were filled 15 min before touch-screen formats. Agreement between formats (validity) was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), while internal consistency of scales (reliability) was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. Overall, 134 patients were included with a mean age of 51 years, 74.6 % female and 57.5 % presenting RA. BASDAI, BASFI, HAQ and ASQoL showed high ICC between paper and touch-screen formats (0.977, 0.958, 0.974 and 0.940, respectively). ICC for Global VAS ranged from 0.906 to 0.921, while Spa-VAS ranged from 0.867 to 0.943. The mean ICC for all SF-36 domains was 0.889 (ICC for each domain ranged from 0.781 to 0.944). Touch-screen standard Portuguese formats of these PROs may be valid and reliable tools for PRO measurement in rheumatology.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84947614771&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3347-5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26346588; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00296-015-3347-5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3347-5; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00296-015-3347-5
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know