Why the study?
The Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale is a novel, recently validated questionnaire to assess anhedonia, but the equivalence between its traditional paper-and-pencil and digital formats needed evaluation.
Is the digital format of the Spanish DARS equivalent to the traditional paper-and-pencil format in patients?
Is the digital format of the Spanish DARS equivalent to the traditional paper-and-pencil format in patients?
The digital format of the Spanish DARS shows high internal consistency but is not fully equivalent to the paper-and-pencil version, requiring caution when substituting formats.
Score differences warrant caution substituting digital for paper DARS; leaves open full equivalence validation.
The Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) is a novel questionnaire to assess anhedonia of recent validation. In this work, we aim to study the equivalence between the traditional paper-and-pencil and the digital format of DARS. Sixty-nine patients filled the DARS in a paper-based and digital versions. We assessed differences between formats (Wilcoxon test), validity of the scales [Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)], and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman’s coefficient). We calculated the comparative fit index and the root mean squared error (RMSE) associated with the proposed one-factor structure. Total scores were higher for paper-based format. Significant differences between both formats were found for three items. The weighted Kappa coefficient was approximately 0.40 for most of the items. Internal consistency was greater than 0.94, and the ICC for the digital version was 0.95 and 0.94 for the paper-and-pencil version ( F = 16.7, p < 0.001). Comparative Adjustment Index was 0.97 for the digital DARS and 0.97 for the paper-and-pencil DARS, and RMSE was 0.11 for the digital DARS and 0.10 for the paper-and-pencil DARS. We concluded that the digital DARS is consistent in many respects with the paper-and-pencil questionnaire, but equivalence with this format cannot be assumed without caution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arrua-Duarte et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: