• 1
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Patient Reported Outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regis 2006;71:132.
  • 2
    Wiklund I. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. The example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004;18:35163.
  • 3
    Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Appl Clin Trials 2004;25:53552.
  • 4
    Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical-variables with health-related quality-of-life—a conceptual-model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995;273:5965.
  • 5
    Richard DCS, Lauterbach D. Computers in the training and practice of behavioral assessment. In: HaynesSN, HeibyEM, eds. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 3: Behavioral Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
  • 6
    Stone AA, Shiffman S. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med 1994;16:199202.
  • 7
    Hufford MR, Shields AL. Electronic subject diaries: an examination of applications and what works in the field. Appl Clin Trials 2002;11:4656.
  • 8
    Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, et al. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ 2002;324:11934.
  • 9
    American Psychological Association. Guidelines for Computer-Based Tests and Interpretations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1986.
  • 10
    Schulenberg SE, Yutrzenka BA. The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: implications for measures of negative affect. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1999;31:31521.
  • 11
    Palmblad M, Tiplady B. Electronic diaries and questionnaires: designing user interfaces that are easy for all patients to use. Qual Life Res 2004;13:1199207.
  • 12
    Locke SE, Kowaloff HB, Hoff RG, et al. Computer-based interview for screening blood-donors for risk of HIV transmission. JAMA 1992;268:13015.
  • 13
    Kobak KA, Taylor LV, Dottl SL, et al. A computer-administered telephone interview to identify mental disorders. JAMA 1997;278:90510.
  • 14
    Tseng HM, Tiplady B, Macleod HA, Wright P. Computer anxiety: a comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. Br J Psychol 1998;89:599610.
  • 15
    McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996;1:3046.
  • 16
    Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SS. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Def 1981;86:12737.
  • 17
    Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1981.
  • 18
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:4208.
  • 19
    Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973;33:61319.
  • 20
    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985.
  • 21
    Orwin RG. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. J Educ Stat 1983;8:1579.
  • 22
    Rosenthal R. Meta-analysis: a review. Psychosom Med 1991;53:24771.
  • 23
    Zeger SL, Liang K, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988;44:104960.
  • 24
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:40715.
  • 25
    Grafton KV, Foster NE, Wright CC. Test-retest reliability of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire: assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients and limits of agreement in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin J Pain 2005;1:7382.
  • 26
    Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.
  • 27
    Byrom B, Mundt JC. The value of computer-administered self-report data in central nervous system clinical trials. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2005;8:37483.
  • 28
    Athale N, Sturley A, Skoczen S, et al. A web-compatible instrument for measuring self-reported disease activity in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:2238.
  • 29
    Bellamy N, Campbell J, Stevens J, et al. Validation study of a computerized version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities VA3.0 Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol 1997;24:241315.
  • 30
    Bent H, Ratzlaff CR, Goligher EC, et al. Computer-administered bath ankylosing spondylitis and Quebec Scale outcome questionnaires for low back pain: agreement with traditional paper format. J Rheumatol 2005;32:66972.
  • 31
    Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:804.
  • 32
    Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res 2001;10:1522.
  • 33
    Burke JD, Burke KC, Baker JH, Hillis A. Test-retest reliability in psychiatric-patients of the SF-36 health survey. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1995;5:18994.
  • 34
    Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B. Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. J Asthma 2003;40:75162.
  • 35
    Bushnell DM, Reilly MC, Galani C, et al. Validation of electronic data capture of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome—Quality of Life Measure, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and the EuroQol. Value Health 2006;9:98105.
  • 36
    Cameron E, Sinclair W, Tiplady B. Validity and sensitivity of a pen computer battery of performance tests. J Psychopharmacol 2001;15:10510.
  • 37
    Caro JJ Sr, Caro I, Caro J, et al. Does electronic implementation of questionnaires used in asthma alter responses compared to paper implementation? Qual Life Res 2001;10:68391.
  • 38
    Cook AJ, Roberts DA, Henderson MD, et al. Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain 2004;110:31017.
  • 39
    Drummond HE, Ghosh S, Ferguson A, et al. Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995;4:216.
  • 40
    Ford BD, Vitelli R, Stuckless N. The effects of computer versus paper-and-pencil administration on measures of anger and revenge with an inmate population. Comput Human Behav 1996;12:15966.
  • 41
    Fortner B, Okon T, Schwartzberg L, et al. The Cancer Care Monitor: psychometric content evaluation and pilot testing of a computer administered system for symptom screening and quality of life in adult cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;26:107792.
  • 42
    Gaertner J, Elsner F, Pollmann-Dahmen K, et al. Electronic pain diary: a randomized crossover study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;28:25967.
  • 43
    George CE, Lankford JS, Wilson SE. The effects of computerized versus paper-and-pencil administration on measures of negative affect. Comput Human Behav 1992;8:2039.
  • 44
    Glaze R, Cox JL. Validation of a computerized version of the 10-item (self-rating) Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. J Affect Dis 1991;22:737.
  • 45
    Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV. Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:6671.
  • 46
    Hufford MR, Shiffman S. Correspondence between paper and electronic visual analog scales among adult asthmatics. Paper Presented at the Drug Information Association Statistics Conference. Hilton Head, South Carolina, 2002.
  • 47
    Izquierdo-Porrera AM, Manchanda R, Powell CC, et al. Factors influencing the use of computer technology in the collection of clinical data in a predominantly African-American population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:141115.
  • 48
    Jamison RN, Raymond SA, Levine JG, et al. Electronic diaries for monitoring chronic pain: 1-year validation study. Pain 2001;91:27785.
  • 49
    Jamison RN, Gracely RH, Raymond SA, et al. Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers. Pain 2002;99:3417.
  • 50
    Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, et al. A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 2001;39:1819.
  • 51
    Kurt R, Bogner HR, Straton JB, Tien AY, Gallo JJ. Computer-assisted assessment of depression and function in older primary care patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004;73:16571.
  • 52
    Kvien TK, Mowinckel P, Heiberg T, et al. Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:14804.
  • 53
    Litaker D. New technology in quality of life research: are all computer-assisted approaches created equal? Qual Life Res 2003;12:38793.
  • 54
    Lukin ME, Dowd ET, Plake BS, Kraft RG. Comparing computerized versus traditional psychological assessment. Comput Human Behav 1985;1:4958.
  • 55
    McCabe SE, Diez A, Boyd CJ, et al. Comparing web and mail responses in a mixed mode survey in college alcohol use research. Addict Behav 2006;31:161927.
  • 56
    Mosley-Williams A, Williams CA. Validation of a computer version of the American College of Rheumatology Patient Assessment questionnaire for the autonomous self-entry of self-report data in an urban rheumatology clinic. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:3323.
  • 57
    Ogles BM, France CR, Lunnen KM, et al. Computerized depression screening and awareness. Community Men Health J 1998;34:2738.
  • 58
    Palermo TM, Valenzuela D, Stork PP. A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability. Pain 2004;107:21319.
  • 59
    Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, Van Der Ploeg HM, et al. A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 1998;7:338.
  • 60
    Ryan JM, Corry JR, Attewell R, Smithson MJ. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 2002;11:1926.
  • 61
    Saleh KJ, Radosevich DM, Kassim RA, Et al. Robinson H. Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J Orthop Res 2002;20:114651.
  • 62
    Schaeren S, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Knupp M, et al. A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:2014.
  • 63
    Schmitz N, Hartkamp N, Brinschwitz C, Michalek S. Computerized administration of the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C) in psychosomatic outpatients. Psychiatry Res 1999;87:21721.
  • 64
    Schmitz N, Hartkamp N, Brinschwitz C, et al. Comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Symptom Check List (SCL-90-R): a randomized trial. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2000;102:14752.
  • 65
    Steer RA, Rissmiller DJ, Ranieri WF, Beck AT. Structure of the computer-assisted Beck Anxiety Inventory with psychiatric-inpatients. J Pers Assess 1993;60:53242.
  • 66
    Stratton RJ, Stubbs RJ, Hughes D, et al. Comparison of the traditional paper visual analogue scale questionnaire with an Apple Newton electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in free living subjects feeding ad libitum. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998;52:73741.
  • 67
    Stubbs RJ, Hughes DA, Johnstone AM, et al. Description and evaluation of a Newton-based electronic appetite rating system for temporal tracking of appetite in human subjects. Physiol Behav 2001;72:61519.
  • 68
    Taenzer PA, Speca M, Atkinson MJ, et al. Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Pract 1997;5:16875.
  • 69
    Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, et al. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:47981.
  • 70
    Theiler R, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Good M, Bellamy N. Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004;12:91216.
  • 71
    Van Schaik P, Ahmed T, Suvakovic N, Hindmarsh JR. Effect of an educational multimedia prostate program on the International Prostate Symptom Score. Eur Urol 1999;36:369.
  • 72
    Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, et al. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:9981007.
  • 73
    Wilson AS, Kitas GD, Carruthers DM, et al. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:26873.