Standard setting for a novel esophageal conduit questionnaire: CONDUIT Report Card

Minji K Lee, Kathleen J Yost, Karlyn E Pierson, Amy J Schrandt, Bobbie J Skaare, Shanda H Blackmon, Minji K Lee, Kathleen J Yost, Karlyn E Pierson, Amy J Schrandt, Bobbie J Skaare, Shanda H Blackmon

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to establish the clinical thresholds for five domains (dysphagia, reflux, dumping-hypoglycemia, dumping-GI symptoms, pain) to support the use of the CONDUIT questionnaire as a screening tool to identify patients who might benefit from an educational or clinical intervention.

Methods: A panel of 16 experts met to develop descriptions of "poor," "moderate," and "good" conduit performance. They were trained to use the modified and extended Angoff standard-setting method. Each judge provided item ratings that reflected borderline good and borderline moderate patients. The average item ratings were summed and transformed to a 0-100 scale to derive final cut scores. Panelist evaluation of the process and confidence with the rating tasks were collected.

Results: Panelists expressed that the training on the method gave them information they needed to complete their assignment. Among other factors, their experience with patients was most influential on their ratings. On the 0-100 score scale, good/moderate cuts ranged from 7.2 to 20.8, and moderate/poor cuts ranged from 37.9 to 64.3, depending on domains and weights. Standard errors of one or both cut scores increased for dysphagia and dumping-GI with weighting.

Conclusions: We described the selection and training of panelists and panelists' evaluations of the processes they were asked to follow in detail to defend the cut scores. Further prospective validation studies are underway to compare cut scores from this study and clinicians' judgments and further refine the categorization.

Keywords: Cut scores; Esophageal cancer; Modified Angoff methods; Patient-reported outcomes; Standard setting.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent to publish has been obtained from the participant to report individual patient data. IRB #: 14–007918. IRB review: minimal risk. Name of the ethics committee: Bettie J. Lechtenberg and Nanette N. Bateman.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of how three performance categories from CONDUIT Report Card inform clinical activities

References

    1. Chang YL, Tsai YF, Chao YK, Wu MY. Quality-of-life measures as predictors of post-esophagectomy survival of patients with esophageal cancer. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab. 2016;25(2):465–475.
    1. Chang YL, Tsai YF, Wu YC, Hsieh MJ. Factors relating to quality of life after esophagectomy for cancer patients in Taiwan. Cancer Nurs. 2014;37(1):4–13. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e318277dc53.
    1. Viklund P, Wengstrom Y, Rouvelas I, Lindblad M, Lagergren J. Quality of life and persisting symptoms after oesophageal cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(10):1407–1414. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.005.
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, Rogak L, Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Atkinson TM, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine Cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–565. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830.
    1. Lee, M. K., Yost, K. J., Pierson, K. E., & Blackmon, S. H. Patient-reported outcome domains for the esophageal CONDUIT Report Card: A prospective trial to establish domains. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 10.1186/s12955-018-1023-7.
    1. Stenton C. The MRC breathlessness scale. Occup Med. 2008;58(3):226–227. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqm162.
    1. Eckardt VF, Aignherr C, Bernhard G. Predictors of outcome in patients with achalasia treated by pneumatic dilation. Gastroenterology. 1992;103(6):1732–1738. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(92)91428-7.
    1. Vantrappen G, Hellemans J. Treatment of achalasia and related motor disorders. Gastroenterology. 1980;79(1):144–154.
    1. Javle M, Ailawadhi S, Yang GY, Nwogu CE, Schiff MD, Nava HR. Palliation of malignant dysphagia in esophageal cancer: A literature-based review. J Support Oncol. 2006;4(8):365–373.
    1. Jeansonne LO, White BC, Pilger KE, Shane MD, Zagorski S, Davis SS, Hunter JG, Lin E, Smith CD. Ten-year follow-up of laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia shows durability. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(9):1498–1502. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9500-9.
    1. Arain MA, Peters JH, Tamhankar AP, Portale G, Almogy G, DeMeester SR, Crookes PF, Hagen JA, Bremner CG, DeMeester TR. Preoperative lower esophageal sphincter pressure affects outcome of laparoscopic esophageal myotomy for achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8(3):328–334. doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2003.09.011.
    1. Ricker KL. Setting cut-scores: A critical review of the Angoff and modified Angoff methods. Alberta J Educ Res. 2006;52(1):53–64.
    1. Hambleton RK, Plake BS. Using an extended Angoff procedure to set standards on complex performance assessments. Appl Meas Educ. 1995;8(1):41–55. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame0801_4.
    1. Angoff WH. Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In: Thorndike RL, editor. Educational Measurement. 2. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1971.
    1. Berk RA. A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Rev Educ Res. 1986;56:137–172. doi: 10.3102/00346543056001137.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi