title: Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A widely discussed design issue in patient satisfaction questionnaires is the optimal length and labelling of the answering scale. The aim of the present study was to compare intra-individually the answers on two response scales to five general questions evaluating patients' perception of hospital care.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between November 2011 and January 2012, all in-hospital patients at a Swiss University Hospital received a patient satisfaction questionnaire on an adjectival scale with three to four labelled categories (LS) and five redundant questions displayed on an 11-point end-anchored numeric scale (NS). The scales were compared concerning ceiling effect, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), individual item answers (Spearman's rank correlation), and concerning overall satisfaction by calculating an overall percentage score (sum of all answers related to the maximum possible sum).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The response rate was 41% (2957/7158), of which 2400 (81%) completely filled out all questions. Baseline characteristics of the responders and non-responders were similar. Floor and ceiling effect were high on both response scales, but more pronounced on the LS than on the NS. Cronbach's alpha was higher on the NS than on the LS. There was a strong individual item correlation between both answering scales in questions regarding the intent to return, quality of treatment and the judgement whether the patient was treated with respect and dignity, but a lower correlation concerning satisfactory information transfer by physicians or nurses, where only three categories were available in the LS. The overall percentage score showed a comparable distribution, but with a wider spread of lower satisfaction in the NS.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Since the longer scale did not substantially reduce the ceiling effect, the type of questions rather than the type of answering scale could be addressed with a focus on specific questions about concrete situations instead of general questions. Moreover, the low correlation in questions about information provision suggests that only three possible response choices are insufficient. Further investigations are needed to find a more sensitive scale discriminating high-end ratings. Otherwise, a longitudinal within-hospital or a cross-sectional between-hospital comparison of patient care is questionable.
authors.affiliation: Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, Hebelstrasse 10, 4031 Basel, Switzerland. Salome.Dell-Kuster@usb.ch.
authors.forename: Salome
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dell-Kuster
authors.forename: Esteban
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Sanjuan
authors.forename: Atanas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Todorov
authors.forename: Heidemarie
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Weber
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Heberer
authors.forename: Rachel
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Rosenthal
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D019538:Health Care Surveys / Q000379:methods*; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014956:Writing
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Nov;54(11):1174-80
references.pmid: 11675170
references.citation: Int J Qual Health Care. 1996 Oct;8(5):447-56
references.pmid: 9117198
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000 Mar;104(1):1-15
references.pmid: 10769936
references.citation: BMJ. 2012 Mar 20;344:e1717
references.pmid: 22434089
references.citation: Int J Qual Health Care. 2002 Oct;14(5):353-8
references.pmid: 12389801
references.citation: Acta Paediatr. 2004 Jun;93(6):830-5
references.pmid: 15244235
references.citation: Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Dec;11(4):335-9
references.pmid: 12468693
references.citation: Med Care. 2001 Mar;39(3):270-83
references.pmid: 11242321
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Aug 16;6:102
references.pmid: 16914046
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2007 Oct 16;4(10):e297
references.pmid: 17941715
references.citation: Psychometrika. 1965 Sep;30(3):357-70
references.pmid: 5216223
references.citation: BMJ. 1991 Apr 13;302(6781):887-9
references.pmid: 1821624
references.citation: Int J Qual Health Care. 1999 Aug;11(4):319-28
references.pmid: 10501602
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):200-7
references.pmid: 20566267
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Oct;55(1):142-6
references.pmid: 15477002
references.citation: Int J Qual Health Care. 2002 Dec;14(6):493-502
references.pmid: 12515335
references.citation: Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):247-63
references.pmid: 10267253
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1-244
references.pmid: 12925269
references.citation: Int J Qual Health Care. 2005 Dec;17(6):465-72
references.pmid: 16100222
references.citation: QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1992 Feb;18(2):53-9
references.pmid: 1574321
references.citation: Med Care. 2003 Dec;41(12):1343-52
references.pmid: 14668667
references.citation: Anaesthesia. 2013 Nov;68(11):1173-8
references.pmid: 23926959
references.citation: Ann Rheum Dis. 1978 Aug;37(4):378-81
references.pmid: 686873
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1998 Nov;87(5):1089-98
references.pmid: 9806687
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 2002 Dec;89(6):863-72
references.pmid: 12453931
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Dec 03;7:197
references.pmid: 18053170
references.citation: Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006 Jun;20(2):331-46
references.pmid: 16850781