From: The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes
Attributeunderassessment | Questionnaire(Questionnumber) | Number ofcategories | Categorieslabelled | Number of orderedthresholds/Totalnumber of thresholds | Misfitting items/Total items | Reasons fordysfunction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difficulty | ||||||
IVI (1–19) | 6 | ✓ | 3/5 | 1/19 | Poorly definedcategories (overlappingcategories) | |
ADVS (1bc–19 bcexcept 6 and 7bc) | 5 | ✓ | 3/4 | 6/17 | Question format(complicated layout dueto branching question) | |
Others | ||||||
Limitation | HVAT (1ab-10ab) | 10 | X | 6/10 | 2/10 | Too many categories(multiplicative scale) |
Global rating(Health) | NEIVFQ (A1, A2) | 10 | X | 8/9 | 0/2 | Too many categories andunlabelled |
True/False | NEIVFQ (20–25,A12, A13) | 5 | ✓ | 2/4 | 6/8 | Use of neutral (‘unsure’)middle category |
Apprehension | ADVS (6bc, 7bc) | 5 | ✓ | 3/4 | 0/2 | Complicated questionformat (complicated layout due to branchingquestion) |
Descriptive | ICS (1) | 4 (3rd categorynot used) | ✓ | 0/2 | 1/1 | Complicated questionformat (complicated layout due to branchingquestion) |
VSQ (16) | 3 | ✓ | 1/2 | 1/1 | Complicated questionformat (very longdescription ofcategories) |