TY - JOUR
T1 - Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer
AU - Hurria, Arti
AU - Akiba, Chie
AU - Kim, Jerome
AU - Mitani, Dale
AU - Loscalzo, Matthew
AU - Katheria, Vani
AU - Koczywas, Marianna
AU - Pal, Sumanta
AU - Chung, Vincent
AU - Forman, Stephen
AU - Nathwani, Nitya
AU - Fakih, Marwan
AU - Karanes, Chatchada
AU - Lim, Dean
AU - Popplewell, Leslie
AU - Cohen, Harvey
AU - Canin, Beverly
AU - Cella, David
AU - Ferrell, Betty
AU - Goldstein, Leanne
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/12/1
Y1 - 2016/12/1
N2 - Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computerbased geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture (SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. Results: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil (P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. Conclusion: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.
AB - Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computerbased geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture (SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. Results: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil (P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. Conclusion: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011605310&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85011605310&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JOP.2016.013136
DO - 10.1200/JOP.2016.013136
M3 - Article
C2 - 27624950
AN - SCOPUS:85011605310
SN - 1554-7477
VL - 12
SP - e1025-e1034
JO - Journal of oncology practice
JF - Journal of oncology practice
IS - 12
ER -