Original Research

A Comparison of 4 Single-Question Measures of Patient Satisfaction

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2020 January;27(1)

References

1. Waters S, Edmondston SJ, Yates PJ, Gucciardi DF. Identification of factors influencing patient satisfaction with orthopaedic outpatient clinic consultation: A qualitative study. Man Ther. 2016;25:48-55.

2. Kortlever JTP, Ottenhoff JSE, Vagner GA, et al. Visit duration does not correlate with perceived physician empathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:296-301.

3. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Methods to influence response to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(3):CD003227.

4. Salisbury C, Burgess A, Lattimer V, et al. Developing a standard short questionnaire for the assessment of patient satisfaction with out-of-hours primary care. Fam Pract. 2005;22:560-569.

5. Ross CK, Steward CA, Sinacore JM. A comparative study of seven measures of patient satisfaction. Med Care. 1995;33:392-406.

6. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377-381.

7. Medicine USNLo. ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed March 18, 2019.

8. Nicholas MK, McGuire BE, Asghari A. A 2-item short form of the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire: development and psychometric evaluation of PSEQ-2. J Pain. 2015;16:153-163.

9. Salkovskis PM, Rimes KA, Warwick H, Clark D. The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychol Med. 2002;32:843-853.

10. Schalet BD, Pilkonis PA, Yu L, et al. Clinical validity of PROMIS depression, anxiety, and anger across diverse clinical samples. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:119-127.

11. Ho AD, Yu CC. Descriptive statistics for modern test score distributions: skewness, kurtosis, discreteness, and ceiling effects. Educ Psychol Meas. 2015;75:365-388.

12. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38:52-54.

13. NICE Satmetrix. What is net promoter? https://www.netpromoter.com/know/. Accessed March 18, 2019.

14. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42.

15. Hasson D, Arnetz BB. Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electronic J Health Educ. 2005;8:178-192.

16. Vickers AJ. Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:709-716.

17. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales: data from a randomized trial. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:43-51.

18. Voutilainen A, Pitkaaho T, Kvist T, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K. How to ask about patient satisfaction? The visual analogue scale is less vulnerable to confounding factors and ceiling effect than a symmetric Likert scale. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72:946-957.

19. Brunelli C, Zecca E, Martini C, et al. Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:42.

20. Hageman MG, Briet JP, Bossen JK, et al. Do previsit expectations correlate with satisfaction of new patients presenting for evaluation with an orthopaedic surgical practice? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:716-721.

21. Keulen MHF, Teunis T, Vagner GA, et al. The effect of the content of patient-reported outcome measures on patient perceived empathy and satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43:1141.e1-e9.

22. Mellema JJ, O’Connor CM, Overbeek CL, et al. The effect of feedback regarding coping strategies and illness behavior on hand surgery patient satisfaction and communication: a randomized controlled trial. Hand. 2015;10:503-511.

23. Tyser AR, Gaffney CJ, Zhang C, Presson AP. The association of patient satisfaction with pain, anxiety, and self-reported physical function. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:1811-1818.

24. Vranceanu AM, Ring D. Factors associated with patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36:1504-1508.

25. Stirling P, Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, et al. The Net Promoter Scores with Friends and Family Test after four hand surgery procedures. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019;44:290-295.

26. Wilberforce M, Poll S, Langham H, et al. Measuring the patient experience in community mental health services for older people: A study of the Net Promoter Score using the Friends and Family Test in England. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34:31-37.

Results

Patient Characteristics

All patients invited to participate in this study agreed, and 258 patients with various diagnoses were enrolled. The median age of the cohort was 54 years (IQR, 40-65 years); 114 (44%) were men, and 119 (42%) were new patients (Table 1). The number of patients assigned to scales 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 62 (24%), 70 (27%), 67 (26%), and 59 (23%), respectively.

Difference in Distribution

Looking at the data distribution (Figure 2) and skewness and kurtosis (Table 2) of the scales, we found that none of the scales was normally distributed.

The 11-point ordinal scale approached the most normal data distribution, with minimal skew (γ1, –0.58) and a normal kurtosis (γ2, 4.0).

Difference in Satisfaction Scores

Mean (SD) scaled satisfaction scores (range, 0-10) were 8.3 (1.2) for the 11-point ordinal scale, 8.3 (1.2) for the 5-point Likert scale, 8.9 (1.7) for the 0-100 numerical VAS, and 8.3 (1.3) for the 0-100 nonnumerical VAS (Table 3 and Table 4).

Because of nonnormal distributions, we tested for a difference using median scores. We found a difference in median scaled satisfaction scores (range, 0-10) between the 4 satisfaction scales: 11-point ordinal scale, 8.0 (8.0-9.0); 5-point Likert scale, 8.0 (8.0-8.0); 0-100 numerical VAS, 9.5 (8.9-10); and 0-100 nonnumerical VAS, 8.4 (7.6-9.5) (P < 0.001; Table 4).

Difference in Floor and Ceiling Effect

A difference was found in ceiling effect between the different scales (P = 0.025), with the 0-100 numerical VAS showing the highest ceiling effect (34%) and the 0-100 nonnumerical VAS showing the lowest ceiling effect (12%; Table 2). There was no floor effect. A single patient used the lowest score (on the Likert scale).

Correlation Between Satisfaction and Psychological Status

Scaled satisfaction scores had a small but significant correlation with PSEQ-2 (r = 0.17; P = 0.006), but not with SHAI-5 (r = –0.12; P = 0.052) or PROMIS Depression (r = –0.12; P = 0.064; not in table), indicating that patients with more self-efficacy had higher satisfaction ratings.

Net Promoter Scores

NPS were 35 for the 11-point ordinal scale; 16 for the 5-point Likert scale; 67 for the 0-100 numerical VAS; and 20 for the 0-100 nonnumerical VAS.