Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Computer-Based Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults With Cancer.

Published

Journal Article

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based 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.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • 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

Published Date

  • December 2016

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 12 / 12

Start / End Page

  • e1025 - e1034

PubMed ID

  • 27624950

Pubmed Central ID

  • 27624950

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1935-469X

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1200/JOP.2016.013136

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States