Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Using rapid cycle tests of change to develop the Carers Assistive Technology Experience Questionnaire: a cognitive interview study in the UK
Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M.. BMJ open, 2021-03-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
We describe the use of rapid cycle tests of change to pretest and develop a Carers Assistive Technology Experience Questionnaire for a survey of informal carers of persons with dementia. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in healthcare settings. We used this method for conducting rapid cycle tests of change through cognitive interviews to pretest the questionnaire. The items for the questionnaire were developed based on an earlier systematic review and qualitative study. PDSA cycles were used incrementally with learning from each cycle used to inform subsequent changes to the questionnaire prior to testing on the next participant. Design Qualitative with use of cognitive interviews through rapid cycle tests of change. Setting UK. Results Nine participants were recruited based on eligibility criteria and purposive sampling. Cognitive interviewing using think aloud and concurrent verbal probing was used to test the comprehension, recall, decision and response choice of participants to the questionnaire. Seven PDSA cycles involving the participants helped identify problems with the questionnaire items, instructions, layout and grouping of items. Participants used a laptop, smartphone and/or tablet computer for testing the electronic version of the questionnaire and one participant also tested the paper version. A cumulative process of presenting items in the questionnaire, anticipating problems with specific items and learning from the unanticipated responses from participants through rapid cycle tests of change allowed rich learning and reflection to progressively improve the questionnaire. Conclusion Using rapid cycle tests of change in the pretesting questionnaire phase of research provided a structure for conducting cognitive interviews. Learning and reflections from the rapid testing and revisions made to the questionnaire helped improve the process of reaching the final version of the questionnaire, that the authors were confident would measure what was intended, rapidly and with less respondent burden.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sriram, V., Jenkinson, C., & Peters, M. (2021). Using rapid cycle tests of change to develop the Carers Assistive Technology Experience Questionnaire: a cognitive interview study in the UK. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042361
Vancouver
Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Using rapid cycle tests of change to develop the Carers Assistive Technology Experience Questionnaire: a cognitive interview study in the UK. BMJ open. 2021. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042361. PMID: 33737425.
BibTeX
@article{sriram2021-33737425,
author = {Sriram, V. and Jenkinson, C. and Peters, M.},
title = {{Using rapid cycle tests of change to develop the Carers Assistive Technology Experience Questionnaire: a cognitive interview study in the UK}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042361},
pmid = {33737425},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042361}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Nine participants were recruited based on eligibility criteria and purposive sampling.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33737425) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “questionnaire”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “questionnaire”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.