Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Respir Med. 2009 Jun;103(6):932-4. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.10.019. Epub 2008 Nov 22.
To adapt the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)), the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ(S)) for a personal digital assistant (Palm TX) and to examine the validity of the electronic versions by comparing them with the original paper versions.
84 adults with asthma and 32 with rhinitis were randomised to complete either the paper or the electronic version first. After 2h, they completed the other version.
68 asthma and 27 rhinitis patients provided analysable data. For the AQLQ(S) and RQLQ(S) differences between paper and electronic were significant. Concordance between paper and electronic, evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient were: AQLQ=0.92, ACQ=0.90 and RQLQ=0.85. Concordance for the individual domains of the AQLQ and RQLQ ranged from 0.52 to 0.94. These levels of concordance did not reach the a priori defined requirement for validity.
The significant bias between paper and electronic versions and only modest concordance provides evidence that patients may respond differently to questionnaires in different formats and show that different formats must not be used interchangeably.
改编哮喘生活质量问卷（AQLQ(S)）、哮喘控制问卷（ACQ）和鼻结膜炎生活质量问卷（RQLQ(S)），使之适用于个人数字助理（Palm TX），并通过与原始纸质版本进行比较来检验电子版本的有效性。
84 名哮喘患者和 32 名鼻炎患者被随机分为先完成纸质版或电子版。2 小时后，他们完成另一个版本。
68 名哮喘患者和 27 名鼻炎患者提供了可分析的数据。对于 AQLQ(S) 和 RQLQ(S)，纸质版和电子版之间的差异具有统计学意义。使用组内相关系数评估的纸质版和电子版之间的一致性为：AQLQ=0.92、ACQ=0.90 和 RQLQ=0.85。AQLQ 和 RQLQ 的各个领域的一致性范围为 0.52 至 0.94。这些一致性水平未达到事先定义的有效性要求。
纸质版和电子版之间存在显著的偏差，只有适度的一致性，这表明患者可能对不同格式的问卷有不同的反应，并且不同的格式不能互换使用。
