Challenges of Cognitive Interviewing in Sensitive Health Topic Research.
Journal
Nursing research
ISSN: 1538-9847
Titre abrégé: Nurs Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
27
6
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
entrez:
26
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cognitive interviewing is a qualitative methodology for generating valid, reliable patient-centered outcome measures. There are challenges inherent in research on sensitive topics that require thoughtful approach by the scientist for data collection methods, analysis, and interpretation. The purpose of this article is to provide principles of cognitive interviewing for sensitive health topics. We review the challenges inherent in cognitive interviewing for sensitive topics scale development. We illustrate adaptations to general cognitive interviewing for sensitive topics through the presentation and analysis of a research exemplar. Researchers must consider threats to quality of sensitive topic data collection and potential harms to participants and researchers. We provide specific examples of how these risks were mitigated in a sensitive topic scale development study. Unique challenges of cognitive interviewing for sensitive health topics can be addressed with a well-planned data collection strategy, anticipating participant safety concerns, and consideration to researcher well-being.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cognitive interviewing is a qualitative methodology for generating valid, reliable patient-centered outcome measures. There are challenges inherent in research on sensitive topics that require thoughtful approach by the scientist for data collection methods, analysis, and interpretation.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this article is to provide principles of cognitive interviewing for sensitive health topics.
METHODS
We review the challenges inherent in cognitive interviewing for sensitive topics scale development. We illustrate adaptations to general cognitive interviewing for sensitive topics through the presentation and analysis of a research exemplar.
RESULTS
Researchers must consider threats to quality of sensitive topic data collection and potential harms to participants and researchers. We provide specific examples of how these risks were mitigated in a sensitive topic scale development study.
DISCUSSION
Unique challenges of cognitive interviewing for sensitive health topics can be addressed with a well-planned data collection strategy, anticipating participant safety concerns, and consideration to researcher well-being.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34173378
doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000530
pii: 00006199-900000000-99660
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
376-382Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest to report.
Références
Alexander S., Pillay R., Smith B. (2018). A systematic review of the experiences of vulnerable people participating in research on sensitive topics. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 88, 85–96. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.013
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.013
Arthur E. K., Menon U. (2016). Measure development and face validity of a self-efficacy for communicating about sex scale. Paper presented at the Oncology Nursing Society Annual Congress.
Arthur E. K., Wills C. E., Browning K., Overcash J., Menon U. (2019). The Self-Efficacy to Communicate About Sex and Intimacy (SECSI) scale: Psychometric assessment in women treated for cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer., 28, 1449–1457. 10.1007/s00520-019-04963-2
doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-04963-2
Boateng G. O., Neilands T. B., Frongillo E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez H. R., Young S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149–149. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Cowles K. V. (1988). Issues in qualitative research on sensitive topics. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 163–179. 10.1177/019394598801000205
doi: 10.1177/019394598801000205
Czaja S. J., Schulz R., Belle S. H., Burgio L. D., Armstrong N., Gitlin L. N., Coon D. W., Martindale-Adams J., Klinger J., Stahl S. M. (2006). Data and safety monitoring in social behavioral intervention trials: The reach ii experience. Clinical Trials (London, England), 3, 107–118. 10.1191/1740774506cn136oa
doi: 10.1191/1740774506cn136oa
Dickson-Swift V., James E. L., Kippen S., Liamputtong P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 853–871. 10.1177/1049732306287526
doi: 10.1177/1049732306287526
Elmir R., Schmied V., Jackson D., Wilkes L. (2011). Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19, 12–16. 10.7748/nr2011.10.19.1.12.c8766
doi: 10.7748/nr2011.10.19.1.12.c8766
Ferrans C. E., Powers M. J. (1992). Psychometric assessment of the quality of life index. Research in Nursing & Health, 15, 29–38. 10.1002/nur.4770150106
doi: 10.1002/nur.4770150106
Flynn K. E., Jeffery D. D., Keefe F. J., Porter L. S., Shelby R. A., Fawzy M. R., Gosselin T. K., Reeve B. B., Weinfurt K. P. (2011). Sexual functioning along the cancer continuum: Focus group results from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®). Psychooncology, 20, 378–386. 10.1002/pon.1738
doi: 10.1002/pon.1738
Flynn K. E., Lin L., Cyranowski J. M., Reeve B. B., Reese J. B., Jeffery D. D., Smith A. W., Porter L. S., Dombeck C. B., Bruner D. W., Keefe F. J., Weinfurt K. P. (2013). Development of the NIH PROMIS® sexual function and satisfaction measures in patients with cancer. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(Suppl. 1), 43–52. 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02995.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02995.x
Flynn K. E., Reeve B. B., Lin L., Cyranowski J. M., Bruner D. W., Weinfurt K. P. (2013). Construct validity of the PROMIS® sexual function and satisfaction measures in patients with cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 40. 10.1186/1477-7525-11-40
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-40
Irwin D. E., Varni J. W., Yeatts K., DeWalt D. A. (2009). Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: A patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 3. 10.1186/1477-7525-7-3
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-3
Jobe J. B. (2003). Cognitive psychology and self-reports: Models and methods. Quality of Life Research, 12, 219–227. 10.1023/A:1023279029852
doi: 10.1023/A:1023279029852
Knafl K., Deatrick J., Gallo A., Holcombe G., Bakitas M., Dixon J., Grey M. (2007). The analysis and interpretation of cognitive interviews for instrument development. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 224–234. 10.1002/nur.20195
doi: 10.1002/nur.20195
Krumpal I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Lee Y.-O., Lee R. M. (2012). Methodological research on “sensitive” topics: A decade review. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 114, 35–49. 10.1177/0759106312437139
doi: 10.1177/0759106312437139
Miller K., Willson S., Chepp V., Padilla J.-L. (Eds.) (2014). Cognitive interviewing methodology. Wiley.
Munhall P. L. (1988). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 150–162. 10.1177/019394598801000204
doi: 10.1177/019394598801000204
Norris A. E., Torres-Thomas S., Williams E. T. (2014). Adapting cognitive interviewing for early adolescent hispanic girls and sensitive topics. Hispanic Health Care International, 12, 111–119.
O’Brien C. P. (2008). The CAGE questionnaire for detection of alcoholism. JAMA, 300, 2054–2056. 10.1001/jama.2008.570
doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.570
Sommers-Flanagan J., Sommers-Flanagan R. (2009). Clinical interviewing (4th ed.). Wiley.
Taylor B., Davis S. (2006). Using the extended PLISSIT model to address sexual healthcare needs. Nursing Standard, 21, 35–40. 10.7748/ns2006.11.21.11.35.c6382.
doi: 10.7748/ns2006.11.21.11.35.c6382
Tourangeau R., Yan T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
Turner R. R., Quittner A. L., Parasuraman B. M., Kallich J. D., Cleeland C. S., Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and selection issues. Value in Health, 10(Suppl. 2), S86–S93. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00271.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00271.x
Warnecke R. B., Ferrans C. E., Johnson T. P., Chapa-Resendez G., O'Rourke D. P., Chavez N., Lad T. (1996). Measuring quality of life in culturally diverse populations. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 20, 29–38.
Weinfurt K. P., Lin L., Bruner D. W., Cyranowski J. M., Dombeck C. B., Hahn E. A., Jeffery D. D., Luecht R. M., Magasi S., Porter L. S., Reese J. B., Reeve B. B., Shelby R. A., Smith A. W., Willse J. T., Flynn K. E. (2015). Development and initial validation of the PROMIS(®) sexual function and satisfaction measures Version 2.0. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 1961–1974. 10.1111/jsm.12966
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12966
Weldring T., Smith S. M. (2013). Article commentary: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Services Insights, 6, 61–68. 10.4137/hsi.S11093
doi: 10.4137/hsi.S11093
Wiering B., de Boer D., Delnoij D. (2017). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: A scoping review. Health Expectations, 20, 11–23. 10.1111/hex.12442
doi: 10.1111/hex.12442
Willis G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.