RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Evaluation of the content validity and cross-cultural validity of the study participant feedback questionnaire (SPFQ)
Greene, A., Elmer, M., Ludlam, S., Shay, K., Bentley, S., Trennery, C., Grimes, R., & Gater, A. (2020). Evaluation of the content validity and cross-cultural validity of the study participant feedback questionnaire (SPFQ). Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 54(6), 1522-1533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-020-00179-3
OBJECTIVES: The Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ) is a patient-completed tool designed to assess patient experiences and satisfaction with aspects associated with being involved in a clinical trial. Originally developed in oncology and among English-speaking participants, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the content and cross-cultural validity of the SPFQ in other indications and non-English-speaking countries.
METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 80 participants across eight non-English-speaking countries (in Europe, South America and Asia) who had received an investigational medicinal product as part of a clinical trial in the past three years. Interviews comprised concept elicitation to identify concepts of importance to participants' trial experiences, and cognitive debriefing to assess understanding and perceived importance of SPFQ instructions, items and response options.
RESULTS: Concept elicitation findings supported the content validity of the SPFQ. During cognitive debriefing, SPFQ instructions and the majority of items were well understood by participants. Participants generally considered the SPFQ items important to their clinical trial experience, albeit a handful of items assessed concepts that had not been experienced by trial participants or were redundant with other SPFQ items. The instructions, response options and recall period of the SPFQ were generally well understood. No country-level differences in understanding or importance were apparent.
CONCLUSION: Study findings provide evidence for the content and cross-cultural validity of the SPFQ and support implementation of the SPFQ as a means of obtaining participant feedback across global development programmes in a variety of indications.