Attkisson C C, Roberts R E, Pascoe G C
Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):349-58. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90014-9.
Compared with CSQ-8, a typical questionnaire approach to assessing global patient satisfaction, the Evaluation Ranking Scale (ERS) had equally good patient acceptability, yielded more normally distributed satisfaction scores, and results allowed comparative information about patients' evaluation of specific service dimensions. The study also addressed key questions that have emerged about the ERS procedure. Patients apparently do not distinguish conceptually between "importance" of dimensions and "satisfaction" with dimensions in the first phase (ranking) of the ERS. Results did confirm that the ERS sequence of ranking and then rating the dimensions is essential to achieving optimal utility of results. The ranking task seems to have an organizing effect on patients' approach to the rating task. This effect does not work to dictate results in the rating phase but rather seems to familiarize patients with the dimensions to be rated thereby yielding greater potential discriminative capacity for the ERS. Finally, results indicate that the ERS can be administered in a flexible fashion that yields additional information about the absolute importance of the six dimensions without loss of desired operating characteristics for the measure.
与用于评估患者总体满意度的典型问卷调查方法CSQ - 8相比，评估排名量表（ERS）具有同样良好的患者接受度，能产生更符合正态分布的满意度得分，且结果能提供有关患者对特定服务维度评价的比较信息。该研究还解决了有关ERS程序出现的关键问题。在ERS的第一阶段（排名）中，患者显然在概念上没有区分维度的“重要性”和对维度的“满意度”。结果确实证实，ERS先对维度进行排名然后再评分的顺序对于实现结果的最佳效用至关重要。排名任务似乎对患者进行评分任务的方式具有组织作用。这种作用在评分阶段并不会决定结果，而是似乎能让患者熟悉要评分的维度，从而使ERS具有更大的潜在区分能力。最后，结果表明ERS可以灵活实施，在不损失该测量所需操作特性的情况下，产生有关六个维度绝对重要性的额外信息。
