1 / 25

Different Scales: Different Answers?

Different Scales: Different Answers?. Introduction to Medicine II Class 6. Regent Teacher : Altamiro Pereira Supervisor Teachers : Cristina Santos and Gustavo Bacelar. Summary. Introduction Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion References. Introduction. Introduction Methods

abba
Télécharger la présentation

Different Scales: Different Answers?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Different Scales: Different Answers? Introduction to Medicine II Class 6 RegentTeacher: Altamiro Pereira Supervisor Teachers: Cristina Santos and Gustavo Bacelar

  2. Summary • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References

  3. Introduction • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References The questionnaire design influences the quality of questionnaire results, which are also related to the choice of the scale used in the questionnaire1. 1Pires, M.D., G. Oliveira, and M. Behlau, Voice Activity and Participation Profile - VAPP administered in two different scales of response. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol, 2011. 23(3): p. 297-300.

  4. Introduction • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Visual Numeric Scale (VNS)2 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)3 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Discordo totalmente Discordo totalmente Concordo totalmente Concordo totalmente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 Hartman, J.M., et al., Tutorials in clinical research: part IV: recognizing and controlling bias. Laryngoscope, 2002. 112(1): p. 23-31. 3 Choi, B.C. and A.W. Pak, A catalog of biases in questionnaires.Prev Chronic Dis, 2005. 2(1): p. A13.

  5. Introduction - Aim • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Finding out: • REPRODUCIBILITY of the scales • AGREEMENT of the scales

  6. Methods • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References • Target Population • Students of Integrated Master’s Degree in Medicine of FMUP, 1st year and 1st time, with classes of Introduction to Medicine II

  7. Methods • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References • Target Population • EXCEPTION: • Classes 6 and 7

  8. Methods • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References • Longitudinal study • Confidential questionnaires

  9. Methods • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Questionnaire A Questionnaire B 1 (NRS) 2 (VAS) 3 (VNS) 4 (NRS) 5 (VNS) 6 (VAS) 1 (NRS) 2 (VAS) 3 (VNS) 4 (VAS) 5 (NRS) 6 (VNS) REPRODUCIBILITY AGREEMENT

  10. TARGET POPULATION Methods START BLOCK 5 Yes • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References No BLOCK 1 No Yes QUESTIONNAIRE A QUESTIONNAIRE B 30 DAYS 30 DAYS QUESTIONNAIRE B QUESTIONNAIRE A SPSS ANALYSIS END

  11. Methods • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References • In order to assess reproducibility and agreement we used: • Bland and Altman plots • Information Based Measure of Disagreement (IBMD) with respective 95% confidence intervals

  12. Methods • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Programed sample n=223 211 peopleansweredatleastonequestionnaire Analysed sample n=133 (60%) (answered to bothquestionnaires)

  13. Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Distributionofthegenderofpeoplewhoansweredto bothquestionnaires n=133

  14. Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References

  15. Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References

  16. 1 – AssessingReproducibility Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References

  17. Question 1 Uso com frequência a internet para fazer downloads • Question 2 • Jogo frequentementeon-line [ -3,57 ; 3,47 ] [ -3,45 ; 3,87 ] Numeric Rating Scale Visual AnalogueScale • Question 3 • No meu estudo recorro frequentemente à internet [ -3,75 ; 3,79 ] Visual NumericScale Discordo totalmente Concordo totalmente Concordototalmente Discordototalmente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  18. Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Informationbasedmeasureofdisagreement (IBMD) IBMD=0 (no disgreement)

  19. 2 – AssessingAgreement Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References

  20. Question 4 – NRS vs VAS Comunico com amigos/familiares frequentemente pela Internet • Question 5 – VNS vs NRS • Acedofrequentemente a informaçãodiáriana Internet [ -5,21 ; 5,56 ] [ -4,65 ; 4,51 ] Numeric Rating Scale Question 6 – VAS vs VNS Acedo frequentemente a motores de busca para pesquisa de informação Visual AnalogueScale [ -3,03 ; 3,20 ] Visual NumericScale Discordo totalmente Concordo totalmente Concordototalmente Discordototalmente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  21. Results and Discussion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Informationbasedmeasureofdisagreement (IBMD) IBMD=0 (no disgreement)

  22. Conclusion • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References • Allthescaleshadanidenticallowreproducibility • Althoughtheagreementbetweenthescales in studyisverylow, VAS and VNS are themostaccordablescales.

  23. References • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References • Bousquet, P.J., et al., Visual analog scales can assess the severity of rhinitis graded according to ARIA guidelines. Allergy, 2007. 62(4): p. 367-372. • Choi, B.C. and A.W. Pak, A catalog of biases in questionnaires.Prev Chronic Dis, 2005. 2(1): p. A13. • Hartman, J.M., et al., Tutorials in clinical research: part IV: recognizing and controlling bias. Laryngoscope, 2002. 112(1): p. 23-31. • Hogikyan, N.D. and C.A. Rosen, A review of outcome measurements for voice disorders.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2002. 126(5): p. 562-72. • Pesudovs, K., et al., The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optometry and Vision Science, 2007. 84(8): p. 663-674. • Pires, M.D., G. Oliveira, and M. Behlau, Voice Activity and Participation Profile - VAPP administered in two different scales of response. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol, 2011. 23(3): p. 297-300. • Price, D.D., et al., A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain, 1994. 56(2): p. 217-26. • Rouve, S., et al., Numeric score and visual analog scale in assessing seasonal allergic rhinitis severity. Rhinology, 2010. 48(3): p. 285-91. • Schiavetti, N., et al., Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of stuttering severity. J Speech Hear Res, 1983. 26(4): p. 568-73.

  24. Acknowledgements • Introduction • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion • References Professor Altamiro Pereira Teachers Cristina Santos andGustavo Bacelar Mr. Bruno Neves andMrs. Marta Moreira Alltheparticipants in thestudy

  25. Different Scales: Different Answers? Introduction to Medicine II Class 6 RegentTeacher: Altamiro Pereira Supervisor Teachers: Cristina Santos andGustavo Bacelar

More Related