Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Research article

KIDMAP, a web based system for gathering patients' feedback on their doctors

Authors: Tsair-Wei Chien, Weng-Chung Wang, Sho-Be Lin, Ching-Yih Lin, How-Ran Guo, Shih-Bin Su

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The gathering of feedback on doctors from patients after consultations is an important part of patient involvement and participation. This study first assesses the 23-item Patient Feedback Questionnaire (PFQ) designed by the Picker Institute, Europe, to determine whether these items form a single latent trait. Then, an Internet module with visual representation is developed to gather patient views about their doctors; this program then distributes the individualized results by email.

Methods

A total of 450 patients were randomly recruited from a 1300-bed-size medical center in Taiwan. The Rasch rating scale model was used to examine the data-fit. Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis was conducted to verify construct equivalence across the groups. An Internet module with visual representation was developed to provide doctors with the patient's online feedback.

Results

Twenty-one of the 23 items met the model's expectation, namely that they constitute a single construct. The test reliability was 0.94. DIF was found between ages and different kinds of disease, but not between genders and education levels. The visual approach of the KIDMAP module on the WWW seemed to be an effective approach to the assessment of patient feedback in a clinical setting.

Conclusion

The revised 21-item PFQ measures a single construct. Our work supports the hypothesis that the revised PFQ online version is both valid and reliable, and that the KIDMAP module is good at its designated task. Further research is needed to confirm data congruence for patients with chronic diseases.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Davies A, Ware J: Involving consumers in quality of care assessment. Health Affairs. 1988, 7: 33-48. 10.1377/hlthaff.7.1.33.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Levine A: Medical professionalism in the new millenium: A physician charter. 2002, 136: 243-226.
3.
Epstein R, Hundert E: Defining and assessing professional competence. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002, 287: 226-235. 10.1001/jama.287.2.226.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Maudsley R, Wilson D, Neufield V, Hennen B, DeVillaer M, Wakefield J: Educating future physicians for Ontario: phase II. Academic Medicine. 2000, 75: 113-126. 10.1097/00001888-200002000-00005.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
7.
Delbanco T: Enriching the doctor-patient relationship by inviting the patient's perspective. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1992, 116: 414-418.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Greco M, Brownlea A, McGovern J: Impact of patient feedback on the interpersonal skills of GP Registrars: results of a longitudinal study. Medical education. 2001, 36: 336-376.
9.
Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, Jennett P, Donoff M, Moores D: Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: the Physician Achievement Review. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1999, 161: 52-57.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Hearnshaw H, Baker R, Cooper A, Eccles M, Soper J: The costs and benefits of asking patients their opinions about general practice. Family Practice. 1996, 13: 52-58. 10.1093/fampra/13.1.52.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Violato C, Lockyer J, Fidler H: Multisource feedback: a method of assessing surgical practice. British Medical Journal. 2003, 326: 546-548. 10.1136/bmj.326.7388.546.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, Matthews K: Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res. 2004, 6 (3): e29-10.2196/jmir.6.3.e29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Rodriguez H, von Glahn T, Rogers W, Chang H, Fanjiang G, Safran D: Evaluating patients' experiences with individual physicians: A randomized trial of mail, internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys. Medical Care. 2006, 44 (2): 167-174. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000196961.00933.8e.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta P, et al: Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2). J Med Internet Res. 2004, 6 (3): e30-10.2196/jmir.6.3.e30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Wright BD, Masters GN: Rating Scale Analysis. 1982, Chicago, Ill: MESA Press
20.
Wright BD, Mok M: Understanding Rasch Measurement: Rasch Models Overview. J Appl Meas. 2000, 1: 83-106.PubMed
21.
Bond TG, Fox CM: Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2001, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 179-
22.
Wright BD: Rasch vs. Birnbaum. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1992, 5 (4): 178-
23.
Wright BD, Mead RJ, Ludlow LH: KIDMAP: Person-by-item interaction mapping. Research Memorandum No. 29. 1980, MESA Psychometric Laboratory, Department of Education, University of Chicago
24.
Rasch G: Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligent and Attainment Tests. 1960, Copenhagen, Denmark: Institute of Educational Research
25.
26.
Chisholm A, Askham J: What do you think of your doctor?. 2006, Oxford: Picker Institute Europe
27.
28.
Andrich D: A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978, 43: 561-573. 10.1007/BF02293814.CrossRef
29.
Smith AB, Rush R, Fallowfield LJ, Velikova G, Sharpe M: Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008, 8: 33-10.1186/1471-2288-8-33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Embretson SE, Reise SP: Item Response Theory for Psychologists. 2000, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31.
Holland PW, Wainer H: Differential Item Functioning. 1993, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
32.
Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson J-E, Martin-Lof P: Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994, 8: 370-
33.
Waugh RF, Chapman ES: An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis (true-score theory) and Rasch measurement: What is the difference? Which method is better?. J Appl Meas. 2005, 6: 80-99.PubMed
34.
Doig B: Rasch Down down. Rasch Meas Trans. 1990, 4 (1): 96-100.
35.
Masters GN: KIDMAP – a history. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994, 8 (2): 366-
36.
Linacre JM: Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas. 2002, 3 (1): 85-106.PubMed
37.
Chien T-W, Hsu S-Y, Tai C, Guo H-R, Su S-Bin: Using Rasch Analysis to Validate the Revised PSQI to Assess Sleep Disorders in Taiwan's Hi-tech Workers. Community Mental Health Journal. 2008, 44: 417-425. 10.1007/s10597-008-9144-9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Adams RJ, Khoo ST: QUEST (Version 2.1): The interactive test analysis system. Rasch Meas Trans. 1998, 11 (4): 598-
39.
Wilson M, Kennedy C, Draney K: ConstructMap (Version 4.0) [computer program], Berkeley: CA. 2008
40.
Linacre JM, Wright BD: A user's guide to WINSTEPS. 1998, Chicago: MESA Press
41.
Chien T-W, Wang W-C, Chen N-S, Lin H-J: Improving Hospital Indicator Management with the Web-KIDMAP Module: THIS as an Example. Journal of Taiwan Association for Medical Informatic. 2006, 15 (4): 15-26.
42.
Smith EV, Wakeky MB, de Kruif REL, Swartz CW: Optimizing Rating Scales for Self-Efficacy (and Other) Research. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2002, 63 (3): 69-91.
43.
Linacre JM: Comparing "Partial Credit" and "Rating Scale" Models. Rasch Meas Trans. 2000, 14 (3): 768-
44.
Metadata
Title
KIDMAP, a web based system for gathering patients' feedback on their doctors
Authors
Tsair-Wei Chien
Weng-Chung Wang
Sho-Be Lin
Ching-Yih Lin
How-Ran Guo
Shih-Bin Su
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-38

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2009 Go to the issue

Research article

Recruitment rates and reasons for community physicians' non-participation in an interdisciplinary intervention study on leg ulceration

Research article

Estimation of colorectal adenoma recurrence with dependent censoring

Research article

Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention

Study protocol

Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial of a diabetes self-management intervention for low-Income Latinos: Latinos en Control

Research article

Determining the date of diagnosis – is it a simple matter? The impact of different approaches to dating diagnosis on estimates of delayed care for ovarian cancer in UK primary care

Research article

Measuring agreement of administrative data with chart data using prevalence unadjusted and adjusted kappa