SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of a self-reported Measure in Psychological Assessment when the Instrument is self-administered by the Patient or when Administrated by the Clinician

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Self-reported measures are the questionnaire-based instrument that are routinely used in the clinical scenario to assess psychological health. Technically, the self-reported measure should be administrated by the patients themselves but due to the complexity of tools and illiteracy among patients, clinicians often tend to interview the patients.

Objective

Present article aims to compare the accuracy of a self-reported measure in the assessment of the psychological health of a patient when the instrument is self-administrated by the patient and when administrated by the clinician or researcher.

Methods

We have recruited 43 patients of oral cancer in the study who have a tumor in the buccal mucosa region. The Hindi version of the shame and stigma scale was used to analyse the shame and stigma in patients. The questionnaire was first provided to the patient for the self-administration and after that clinician administrated the questionnaire to the patient by kee** the clinician blinded to the patient self-administrated responses.

Results

There was no significant difference in the global mean score and mean score of various subdomains of shame and stigma scale in the self-administered and clinician-administered mode of interview. However, the clinician-administered mode could provide more accurate measures as it helps the patient towards a better understanding of questions.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the newly developed or translated self-reported measure should be tested for both patient administrated and clinician administrated compatibility. Questionnaires could be administrated by the clinician in the case when the patient is illiterate or in the case when the patient does not understand the language of the instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability (data transparency)

NA.

Code Availability (software application or custom code)

NA.

References

  1. De Leeuw E (2008) Self-administered questionnaires and standardized interviews. Handbook of social research methods. :313 – 27

  2. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, Phillips SM (1996) Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to tests and measurement. Mayfield Publishing Co

  3. Bray VJ, Dhillon HM, Vardy JL (2018) Systematic review of self-reported cognitive function in cancer patients following chemotherapy treatment. J Cancer Surviv 12(4):537–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lavrakas PJ (2008) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. SAGE Research Methods

  5. Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS (2017) Guidelines for develo**, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth 11(1):S80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bowling A (2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health 27(3):281–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Storms H, Claes N, Aertgeerts B, Van den Broucke S (2017) Measuring health literacy among low literate people: an exploratory feasibility study with the HLS-EU questionnaire. BMC Public Health 17(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Juniper E, Griffith L et al (1993) Interviewer versus self-administered questionnaires in develo** a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. J Clin Epidemiol 46(6):529–534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cook C (2010) Mode of administration bias. Taylor & Francis

  11. Hutchinson P, Dhairyawan R, Shame (2018) Strategies for addressing the negative impact shame has on public health and diagnosis and treatment of HIV. Bioethics 32(1):68–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gagné J-P, Southall K, Jennings MB (2011) Stigma and self-stigma associated with acquired hearing loss in adults. Hear Rev 18(8):16–22

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hinshaw SP (2009) The mark of shame: Stigma of mental illness and an agenda for change. Oxford University Press

  14. Bakshi J, Goyal AK, Singh V, Sannigrahi M et al (2020) Stage-specific expression analysis of MMP-2 & MMP-9 in laryngeal carcinoma. J Cancer Res Ther 16(3):517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anand A, Goyal AK, Bakshi J, Sharma K et al (2018) Yoga as an integrative approach for prevention and treatment of oral cancer. Int J Yoga 11(3):177

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bakshi J, Goyal AK (2021) Clinical yoga trial aim to improve quality of life at advanced stages of oral cancer. Sport Sci for Health 17(3):677–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bakshi J, Goyal AK, Saini J Quality of life in oral Cancer patients following Surgical Excision and Flap Reconstruction.J Maxillofac Oral Surg.2021;1–6.

  18. Goyal AK, Bakshi J, Panda NK, Kapoor R et al (2021) Media commercials conveying awareness regarding prevention of head and neck cancer by focusing on stigmatized perspective of disease: right or wrong?Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. :1–4

  19. Goyal AK, Bakshi J, Panda NK, Kapoor R et al (2021) Stigmatic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on head & neck cancers survivors.Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. :1–5

  20. Kissane DW, Patel SG, Baser RE, Bell R et al (2013) Preliminary evaluation of the reliability and validity of the shame and Stigma Scale in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 35(2):172–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pirola WE, Paiva BSR, Barroso EM, Kissane DW et al (2017) Translation and cultural adaptation of the shame and Stigma Scale (SSS) into portuguese (Brazil) to evaluate patients with head and neck cancer. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 83(6):697–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tseng W-T, Lee Y, Hung C-F, Lin P-Y et al (2019) Validation of the chinese version of the shame and stigma scale in patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer Manag Res 11:10297

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Pirola WE, Paiva BSR, De Oliveira CZ, Lucchetti G et al (2020) Validation of the brazilian version of the shame and stigma scale (SSS-Br) for patients with head and neck cancers. Palliat Support Care 18(2):186–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mangoulia P, Baizanis N, Christodoulou C, Kouzoupis A et al (2020) The shame and Stigma Scale in Head and Neck Cancer (SSS): translation and validation in Greek. J Commun Med 3(1):1020

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goyal AK, Bakshi J, Panda NK, Kapoor R et al (2021) A hybrid method for the cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Int J Appl Posit Psychol 6(1):45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goyal AK, Bakshi J, Panda NK, Kapoor R et al (2021) Assessment of shame and stigma in Head and Neck Cancer: a Meta-analysis.J Maxillofac Oral Surg. :1–7

  27. Goyal AK, Bakshi J, Panda NK, Kapoor R et al (2021) Translation and validation of shame and stigma scale for head and neck cancer into the Hindi language.J Maxillofac Oral Surg. :1–14

  28. Bajekal M, Harris T, Breman R, Woodfield K (2004) Review of disability estimates and definitions: a study carried out on behalf of the department for work and pensions. Department for Work and Pensions, Social Research Division, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tourangeau R (1984) Cognitive science and cognitive methods. Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines, vol 15. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 73–100

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tsakos G, Bernabé E, O’Brien K, Sheiham A et al (2008) Comparison of the self-administered and interviewer-administered modes of the child-OIDP. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, Landsman PB (1996) Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? J Clin Epidemiol 49(2):135–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Puhan MA, Ahuja A, Van Natta ML, Ackatz LE et al (2011) Interviewer versus self-administered health-related quality of life questionnaires - does it matter? Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lozano F, Lobos JM, March JR, Carrasco E et al (2016) Self-administered versus interview-based questionnaires among patients with intermittent claudication: do they give different results? A cross-sectional study. Sao Paulo Med J 134(1):63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheung YB, Goh C, Thumboo J, Khoo K-S et al (2006) Quality of life scores differed according to mode of administration in a review of three major oncology questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 59(2):185–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bakshi J, Tiwana H, Prashant S, Bahadur D et al (2022) Case report on surgical removal of 3.5 kg benign mesenchymal tumor from the mandible region. Egypt J Otolaryngol 38(1):1-5.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors highly acknowledged the expert committee for reviewing the present work. The manuscript was proofread by doc navigator©, Chandigarh.

Funding

The work in this research is also supported by the Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) provided by ICMR, New Delhi wide Award no. 3/13/JRF − 2015/HRD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Atul Kumar Goyal, Jaimanti Bakshi, Naresh K Panda & Dharam Vir

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Rakesh Kapoor

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Krishan Kumar

  4. Department of Hindi, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

    Pankaj Aneja

Authors
  1. Atul Kumar Goyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaimanti Bakshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naresh K Panda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rakesh Kapoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dharam Vir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Krishan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pankaj Aneja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JB and DV conceptualized the work; RK and NKP helped with the patient recruitment; KS and PA reviewed the whole work; AKG collected and compiled the raw data, generated the results, and drafted the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atul Kumar Goyal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethical standards

Present study has been approved by the institute ethics committee (Letter No. INT/IEC/2019/002539 with Ref No. NK/5657/PhD).

Consent to Participate

Participant information sheet was provided to all participants and written consent was taken from every participant.

Consent for publication

Authorship consent form has been signed by all the authors. Permission form the copyrighted owner of Hindi version of shame and stigma scale, was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goyal, A.K., Bakshi, J., Panda, N.K. et al. Accuracy of a self-reported Measure in Psychological Assessment when the Instrument is self-administered by the Patient or when Administrated by the Clinician. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 75, 1266–1270 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-022-03379-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-022-03379-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation