Department of Applied Psychology, Bryant University, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917, USA.
Qual Life Res. 2011 Oct;20(8):1169-77. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9856-0. Epub 2011 Feb 4.
This study tests whether a joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life can stabilize ratings by providing contextual information, thereby helping participants calibrate responses on a rating scale. We also use the method to test for scale recalibration between patients and non-patients.
In an Internet survey, participants (N = 1,865) rated a target health condition, either diabetes or obesity, on a 100-point rating scale. Participants either rated several other items on the same rating scale first (joint evaluation), or rated the target condition first (single evaluation). We compared target condition ratings for joint versus single evaluation, as well as the rank position of that item among the other items. We also compared ratings and rankings for patients versus non-patients.
The method effectively picked up distinct patterns of scale usage, with evidence of scale recalibration for obesity ratings, but not for diabetes ratings. The stabilizing effects of the method were mixed. For both diabetes and obesity, the joint evaluation task helped stabilize the rank position of the target condition, but not the rating.
Results do not conclusively support joint evaluation as a method for reducing noise in rating scale usage, but do support its use for detecting scale recalibration between patients and non-patients.
本研究旨在测试联合评估方法是否可以通过提供情境信息来稳定评分，从而帮助参与者在评分量表上校准响应。我们还使用该方法测试患者和非患者之间的量表重新校准。
在一项互联网调查中，参与者（N=1865）对 100 分制的目标健康状况（糖尿病或肥胖症）进行了评分。参与者要么首先对同一评分量表上的其他几个项目进行评分（联合评估），要么首先对目标状况进行评分（单一评估）。我们比较了联合评估与单一评估的目标状况评分，以及该项目在其他项目中的排名位置。我们还比较了患者与非患者的评分和排名。
该方法有效地捕捉到了量表使用的不同模式，肥胖症的评分显示出了量表重新校准的证据，但糖尿病的评分则没有。该方法的稳定效果参差不齐。对于糖尿病和肥胖症，联合评估任务有助于稳定目标状况的排名位置，但对评分没有帮助。
结果并未明确支持联合评估作为减少评分量表使用中噪声的方法，但支持其用于检测患者和非患者之间的量表重新校准。
