This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Many hospitals have adopted mobile nursing carts that can be easily rolled up to a patient’s bedside to access charts and help nurses perform their rounds. However, few papers have reported data regarding the use of wireless computers on wheels (COW) at patients’ bedsides to collect questionnaire-based information of their perception of hospitalization on discharge from the hospital.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative efficiency of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and the precision of CAT-based measures of perceptions of hospitalized patients, as compared with those of nonadaptive testing (NAT). An Excel module of our CAT multicategory assessment is provided as an example.
A total of 200 patients who were discharged from the hospital responded to the CAT-based 18-item inpatient perception questionnaire on COW. The numbers of question administrated were recorded and the responses were calibrated using the Rasch model. They were compared with those from NAT to show the advantage of CAT over NAT.
Patient measures derived from CAT and NAT were highly correlated (
CAT-based administration of surveys of patient perception substantially reduced patient burden without compromising the precision of measuring patients’ perceptions of hospitalization. The Excel module of animation-CAT on the wireless COW that we developed is recommended for use in hospitals.
As computer technology and health care become more integrated, many hospitals have adopted mobile nursing carts that can be easily rolled up to a patient’s bedside to access charts and help nurses perform their rounds [
Two new modes of survey administration have been reported to make surveys more easily accessible to those who cannot read or write [
There is no doubt that using wireless COW at a patient’s bedside is an efficient way of instantly gathering feedback from patients. Traditional paper-and-pencil or computer-based devices (nonadaptive testing [NAT]) impose a large respondent burden because patients are required to answer all the questions. In contrast, CAT-based tests developed using item response theory (IRT) [
In classical test theory, raw scores (or linear transformation scores, eg, T score) are usually adopted as respondent measures. However, subsequent parametric statistical analyses, such as computing mean, variance, correlation coefficient, and Cronbach alpha [
To overcome this obstacle, the IRT-based Rasch model [
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative efficiency of an Internet-based polytomously scored CAT and the precision of CAT-based measures of perceptions of hospitalized patients, as compared with those measured by NAT. An Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) module of our CAT multicategory assessment is provided as an example.
The study sample was recruited from inpatients at a 1333-bed medical center in southern Taiwan. Patients who had been discharged were selected randomly by the digit code of their invoice number during each morning and afternoon interval from Monday through Friday in summer 2010.
As an incentive for participation, patients were offered a gift card for US $3.20 good for purchases at 7-11 convenience stores. A total of 200 patients either completed the questionnaire on COW themselves or were helped by a trained volunteer (if they were unable to personally complete the questionnaire); proxies were allowed because most of those helping patients carry out their discharge procedure were the patients’ family members or friends. Time spent by each patient was recorded in Excel after they completed the questionnaire. This study was approved and monitored by the Research and Ethical Review Board of the Chi-Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
We designed the 18-item CAT questionnaire in Excel based on an 18-item inpatient perception questionnaire (IPQ-18) [
Data collected from the patients included demographic characteristics (gender, treatment department, age, and person completing survey, ie, proxy or patient); perception measure in a logit unit; number of items needed to be completed; and mean square errors (MNSQ) of infit and outfit (indicators of response patterns for the IPQ-18 scale [
Items of the 18-item scale ordered by item overall difficulties
Item number | Scale content | Difficulty | |||||
Categorya | Item | Overall | Step1 | Step2 | Step3 | Step4 | |
39 | L | Did staff tell you about medication side effects when going home? | 3.78 | 0.02 | 1.87 | 5.35 | 7.89 |
41 | L | Did doctors or nurses give your family information needed to help you? | 2.76 | –1.00 | 0.85 | 4.33 | 6.87 |
27 | N | Did hospital staff talk about your worries and fears? | 2.22 | –1.54 | 0.31 | 3.79 | 6.33 |
11 | W | Were you ever bothered by noise at night from other patients? | 1.58 | –2.18 | –0.33 | 3.15 | 5.69 |
24 | N | Were you involved in decisions about your care and treatment? | 0.67 | –3.09 | –1.24 | 2.24 | 4.78 |
30 | N | How long was it after using the call button before you got the help you needed? | 0.42 | –3.34 | –1.49 | 1.99 | 4.53 |
42 | L | Did staff tell you how to contact them if worries arose after leaving? | –0.3 | –4.06 | –2.21 | 1.27 | 3.81 |
9 | A | Did you feel you waited a long time to get to a bed on a ward? | –0.63 | –4.39 | –2.54 | 0.94 | 3.48 |
44 | O | How would you rate how well the doctors and nurses worked together? | –0.71 | –4.47 | –2.62 | 0.86 | 3.4 |
2 | A | How organized was the care you received in the emergency room? | –0.95 | –4.71 | –2.86 | 0.62 | 3.16 |
5 | A | Were you given enough notice of your date of admission? | –1.08 | –4.84 | –2.99 | 0.49 | 3.03 |
12 | W | Were you bothered by noise at night from hospital staff? | –1.1 | –4.86 | –3.01 | 0.47 | 3.01 |
17 | D | Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you? | –1.1 | –4.86 | –3.01 | 0.47 | 3.01 |
23 | N | Did staff say one thing and something quite different happened to you? | –1.1 | –4.86 | –3.01 | 0.47 | 3.01 |
38 | L | Did staff explain the purpose of the medicines so that you could understand? | –1.1 | –4.86 | –3.01 | 0.47 | 3.01 |
18 | D | Did doctors talk in front of you as if you weren’t there? | –1.12 | –4.88 | –3.03 | 0.45 | 2.99 |
19 | N | Did you get answers that you could understand from a nurse? | –1.12 | –4.88 | –3.03 | 0.45 | 2.99 |
34 | P | Did hospital staff do everything they could to help you control your pain? | –1.12 | –4.88 | –3.03 | 0.45 | 2.99 |
a Categories are A: admission to hospital; D: doctors; L: leaving hospital; N: nurses; O: overall; P: pain; W: hospital and ward.
Outfit statistics are based on unweighted sum of squared standardized residuals and are sensitive to unexpected outlying, off-_target, and low-information responses; whereas infit statistics are based on weighted sum of squared standardized residuals and are sensitive to unexpected inlying patterns among informative and on-_target observations [
We programmed a Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) module in Microsoft Excel and on the Internet (http://www.healthup.org.tw/cat.asp, http://www.webcitation.org/60xWv6p6d) complying with several rules and criteria for CAT-based testing on COW (
Using a wireless computer on wheels (COW) to collect data on patients’ perspectives on hospitalization
Snapshot of computerized adaptive testing (CAT)-based inpatient perception questionnaire for patients
We also set another stop rule so that the minimum number of questions required for completion was 10 items (10/18, 56%), because CAT achieves a similar measurement precision to NAT with only about half the test length [
Two indicators used to examine CAT efficiency in this study are (1) whether the number of questions needed was significantly less than for NAT (18 questions) and (2) whether the precision of person measures was less than that for NAT. We used paired
Accordingly, the perception measure based on NAT should be estimated in advance for each patient who was assumed to have answered all 18 items. The following steps were thus followed: (1) we used a standard item response-generation method [
SPSS software for Windows (Version 12, SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used for all statistical analysis.
Data on patient gender, age, treatment department, and proxy respondent were collected. Noncontinuous variables were reported as frequency and percentages, and were examined by chi-square tests.
For continuous variables, CAT and NAT measures were compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Patient perception measures obtained by CAT were compared between groups using
As seen in
Demographic characteristics of the study population (N = 200)
Variable | Male | Female | Total | χ2 (r-1)*(c-1) | ||||
n | % | n | % | Test |
|
|||
|
0.6 | .45 | ||||||
Willing to participate | 100 | 50 | 100 | 50 | 200 | |||
Unwilling to participate | 13 | 42 | 18 | 58 | 31 | |||
|
0.9 | .82 | ||||||
≤16 | 31 | 31 | 25 | 25 | 56 | |||
17–40 | 27 | 27 | 30 | 30 | 57 | |||
41–70 | 25 | 25 | 27 | 27 | 52 | |||
>70 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 35 | |||
|
3.9 | .42 | ||||||
Internal medicine | 44 | 44 | 41 | 41 | 85 | |||
Surgery | 28 | 28 | 22 | 22 | 50 | |||
Obstetrics and gynecology | 8 | 8 | 14 | 14 | 22 | |||
Pediatrics | 11 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 18 | |||
Other | 12 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 28 | |||
|
1.1 | .57 | ||||||
Family | 75 | 75 | 81 | 81 | 156 | |||
Friend | 15 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 27 | |||
Patient | 10 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 17 |
Mean time spent by patients in CAT was 54.91 seconds (SD 8.00; maximum 76; minimum 33). As shown in
Comparison of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) versus nonadaptive testing (NAT) (all questions having to be answered) in efficiencya as assessed by paired t test
Mean | Variance | Response | Maximum | Minimum | Paired |
|
||
|
||||||||
NAT | 18 | 0.00 | 3600b | 18 | 18 | –476.72 | <.001 | |
CAT | 10.42 | 0.25 | 2084b | 12 | 10 | |||
|
||||||||
NAT | 0.69 | 2.66 | 3600 | 4.16 | –2.69 | 1.10 | .14 | |
CAT | 0.71 | 2.62 | 2084 | 4.00 | –2.56 | |||
|
||||||||
CAT | 54.91c | 64.04c | 2084 | 763 | 333 |
aEfficiency = (1 – 2084/3600) = 0.58.
b3600 = 200 × 18; 2084 = 200 × 10.42.
cOn second unit.
Regarding precision of measurement, person measures from CAT did not statistically differ from those from NAT (
Comparison of inpatient perception by demographic characteristic
Variable | Male | Female | ANOVAa | ||||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Test |
|
||
Proportion | 0.77 | 1.59 | 0.65 | 1.66 |
|
.59 | |
|
|
.55 | |||||
≤16 | 0.77 | 1.72 | 0.83 | 1.81 | –0.12 | .89 | |
17–40 | 1.23 | 1.54 | 0.58 | 1.40 | 1.68 | .09 | |
41–70 | 0.72 | 1.48 | 0.53 | 1.74 | 0.42 | .67 | |
>70 | 0.13 | 1.45 | 0.69 | 1.83 | –1.00 | .32 | |
|
|
.45 | |||||
Internal medicine | 0.65 | 1.53 | 0.49 | 1.48 | 0.47 | .63 | |
Surgery | 0.61 | 1.56 | 0.9 | 1.77 | –0.77 | .44 | |
Obstetrics and gynecology | 1.00 | 1.91 | 0.77 | 1.70 | 0.28 | .77 | |
Pediatrics | 0.45 | 1.79 | 0.19 | 2.00 | 0.30 | .78 | |
Other | 1.73 | 1.29 | 0.68 | 1.85 | 1.67 | .11 | |
|
|
.69 | |||||
Family | 0.90 | 1.58 | 0.60 | 1.62 | 1.14 | .25 | |
Friend | 0.58 | 1.60 | 0.93 | 2.10 | –0.49 | .62 | |
Patient | 0.16 | 1.62 | 0.72 | 1.43 | –0.73 | .47 |
a Analysis of variance.
Total person mean 0.71 logits (SD 1.62); median 0.59; coefficient of skewness 0.103 (
The results from this study indicate that CAT-based testing using COW can reduce patient (or proxy) burdens. It is up to 42% more efficient in answering questions and achieves a very similar degree of measurement precision to NAT.
Consistent with the literature [
Using an Excel module of animation for CAT on COW as a tool that can help hospital staff efficiently and precisely gather feedback from patients is technically feasible. Outfit MNSQ of 2.0 or greater can be used to examine whether patient responses are distorted or abnormal—that is, many more responses unexpectedly did not fit the model’s requirement and were deemed to be very likely to be careless, mistaken, or awkward [
There are 2 major forms of standardized assessments in clinical settings [
We conducted an actual CAT-based survey instead of CAT with simulations. This study demonstrates the whole procedure of a CAT-based survey, from the beginning of data collection (
Several issues should be considered more thoroughly in further studies. First, a total of 200 patients were surveyed on the IPQ-18. The generalizability of this study needs to be investigated with more studies on different samples and different instruments. Second, there is a potential sampling bias in this study. Those who completed the IPQ-18 CAT on COW tended to be younger; and proxies were used to represent patients to complete the discharge procedure from hospital, because they were selected randomly by the digit code of their invoice number on the patient’s discharge. The proportion of proxies, who are assumed to be healthier and more capable of filling out a questionnaire, was very high (183/200, 91.5%; see
In addition, we set at least 10 items in CAT to be completed as one of the stop rules, which might inflate the test length to some extent. As a result, the test length of CAT was about 58% that of NAT, a little higher than in previous studies with about half the test length [
A large variety of behavior-change techniques and other methods to promote exposure to interventions have been used [
A telephone survey with CAT-based administration or patient self-report on the Internet (demonstrated at http://www.healthup.org.tw/cat.asp) can be combined with the CAT on COW for gathering feedback from patients easily, quickly, and efficiently.
There are many issues that should be addressed in the future, including studies that address the limitations noted above. For example, using CAT on COW at patients’ bedsides to gather their feedback before discharge from the hospital can solve the problem of sampling bias (eg, when proxies constitute a high proportion of respondents) and warrants further study. Surveying perceptions of hospital service via the Internet by CAT-type telephone or self-report is encouraged to complement CAT on COW and questionnaires delivered by mail to discharged patients, such as the Picker Institute Europe’s annual survey.
One of the important advantages of CAT scoring is that the item pool can be expanded without changing the metric [
CAT-based administration of surveys of patient perception reduces patient burden without compromising measurement precision. The Excel module for animation-CAT on COW connected to a mainframe computer is recommended for assessing patients’ perceptions of their experience in the hospital.
This study was supported by Grant 98cm-kmu-18 from the Chi Mei Medical Center, Taiwan.
None declared
Chien,Lai and Chou collected all data, generated the database, designed and performed the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. Wang and Huang contributed to the development of the study design and advised on the performance of the statistical analysis. The analysis and results were discussed by all authors together. Chien contributed to the Excel programming, helped to interpret the results and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Excel VBA module for CAT delivering results to the website through an Internet address
Comprehensive overview of Rasch models and the CAT process
Screenshot of the module with an animation-CAT design
analysis of variance
computerized adaptive testing
computers on wheels
inpatient perception questionnaire
item response theory
mean square errors
nonadaptive testing
Visual Basic for Applications