Parent experiences questionnaire for outpatient child and adolescent mental health services (PEQ-CAMHS Outpatients): reliability and validity following a national survey

Abstract

AbstactBackgroundDevelopment and evaluation of the PEQ-CAMHS Outpatients, a parent completed questionnaire to measure experiences of outpatient child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in Norway.MethodsLiterature review, parent interviews, pre-testing and a national survey of 17,080 parents of children who received care at one of the 86 outpatient CAMHS in Norway in 2006. Telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of non-respondents. Levels of missing data, factor structure, internal consistency and construct validity were assessed.Results7,906 (46.0%) parents or primary caregivers responded to the questionnaire. Low levels of missing data suggest that the PEQ-CAMHS is acceptable. The questionnaire includes three scales supported by the results of factor analysis: relationship with health personnel (8 items), information and participation (4 items), and outcome (3 items). Item-total correlations were all above 0.6 and Cronbach's alpha correlations ranged from 0.88-0.94. The results of comparisons of scale scores with several variables relating to global satisfaction, outcome, cooperation, information, involvement and waiting time support the construct validity of the instrument.ConclusionsThe PEQ-CAMHS Outpatients questionnaire includes important aspects of outpatient CAMHS from the perspective of the parent. It has evidence for data quality, internal consistency and validity and is recommended in surveys of parent experiences of these services. Future research should assess test-retest reliability and further tests of construct validity that include clinical data are recommended.

Overall patient satisfaction with hospitals: effects of patient-reported experiences and fulfilment of expectations

“…The findings from a Norwegian follow-up study involving a similar inpatient population showed that postal respondents and non-respondents had almost the same patient-reported experience scores 27. This is in line with the results of other Norwegian user-experiences studies,28 29 indicating that the response rate exerts only minor effects.…”

The family experiences of in-hospital care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI): a validation study

“…First, the design of this study did not assess test-retest reliability. For now, we must rely on satisfactory findings from the PEPC questionnaire and modifications [22, 27]. Additionally, the focus group could have included a higher number of family members than three to secure a broader covering of themes.…”

“…In addition, included in the PEPC questionnaire was several other single questions of possible interest in the family experiences questionnaire developmental process: nine questions about health care delivery, overall satisfaction with care and how the parents were treated, the extent to which parent expectations were met, information about medication, extent of poor treatment, and extent of any problems with the staff. Good validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability have been reported [22, 27]. …”

The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test–retest reliability and hospital-level reliability

“…The conceptual approach was further developed and refined as part of the project, but the study did not follow our standard development and validation process. [12][13][14][15] An internal reference group was used instead of an external group, and we only conducted cognitive interviews with patients, not indepth interviews. The inclusion of the PRIH-I within an existing patient-experience questionnaire gave rise to space restrictions.…”

“…Our standard development and validation process was the starting point for this project, [12][13][14][15] including multiple activities to ensure content validity in the development phase, and a set of psychometric tests in the quantitative phase to assess instrument quality. Adjustments had to be made because of time restrictions and the measurement construct, the latter in particular resulting in substantial changes.…”