Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer

Arti Hurria, Chie Akiba, Jerome Kim, Dale Mitani, Matthew Loscalzo, Vani Katheria, Marianna Koczywas, Sumanta Pal, Vincent Chung, Stephen Forman, Nitya Nathwani, Marwan Fakih, Chatchada Karanes, Dean Lim, Leslie Popplewell, Harvey Cohen, Beverly Canin, David Cella, Betty Ferrell, Leanne Goldstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e1025-e1034
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume12
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Geriatric Assessment
Reproducibility of Results
Neoplasms
Hematologic Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Hurria, A., Akiba, C., Kim, J., Mitani, D., Loscalzo, M., Katheria, V., ... Goldstein, L. (2016). Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer. Journal of Oncology Practice, 12(12), e1025-e1034. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.013136

Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer. / Hurria, Arti; Akiba, Chie; Kim, Jerome; Mitani, Dale; Loscalzo, Matthew; Katheria, Vani; Koczywas, Marianna; Pal, Sumanta; Chung, Vincent; Forman, Stephen; Nathwani, Nitya; Fakih, Marwan; Karanes, Chatchada; Lim, Dean; Popplewell, Leslie; Cohen, Harvey; Canin, Beverly; Cella, David; Ferrell, Betty; Goldstein, Leanne.

In: Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 12, No. 12, 01.12.2016, p. e1025-e1034.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hurria, A, Akiba, C, Kim, J, Mitani, D, Loscalzo, M, Katheria, V, Koczywas, M, Pal, S, Chung, V, Forman, S, Nathwani, N, Fakih, M, Karanes, C, Lim, D, Popplewell, L, Cohen, H, Canin, B, Cella, D, Ferrell, B & Goldstein, L 2016, 'Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer', Journal of Oncology Practice, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. e1025-e1034. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.013136
Hurria, Arti ; Akiba, Chie ; Kim, Jerome ; Mitani, Dale ; Loscalzo, Matthew ; Katheria, Vani ; Koczywas, Marianna ; Pal, Sumanta ; Chung, Vincent ; Forman, Stephen ; Nathwani, Nitya ; Fakih, Marwan ; Karanes, Chatchada ; Lim, Dean ; Popplewell, Leslie ; Cohen, Harvey ; Canin, Beverly ; Cella, David ; Ferrell, Betty ; Goldstein, Leanne. / Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer. In: Journal of Oncology Practice. 2016 ; Vol. 12, No. 12. pp. e1025-e1034.
@article{05b8a641b410456d9ab30f4c4afc0782,
title = "Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Arti Hurria and Chie Akiba and Jerome Kim and Dale Mitani and Matthew Loscalzo and Vani Katheria and Marianna Koczywas and Sumanta Pal and Vincent Chung and Stephen Forman and Nitya Nathwani and Marwan Fakih and Chatchada Karanes and Dean Lim and Leslie Popplewell and Harvey Cohen and Beverly Canin and David Cella and Betty Ferrell and Leanne Goldstein",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JOP.2016.013136",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "e1025--e1034",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Practice",
issn = "1554-7477",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "12",

}

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

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

VL - 12

SP - e1025-e1034

JO - Journal of Oncology Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Practice

SN - 1554-7477

IS - 12

ER -