|
In sum, there are several mechanisms through which cancer researchers can attempt to maximize the utility of self-report data. These include using established instruments, assessing recent versus past events or states, providing cues to enhance recall, ensuring the clarity of all self-report questions, and including training to reduce (and probes to assess) confusion. Also, researchers should be aware of items that request information on potentially sensitive topics, and consider the impact of social desirability and stigma on findings. Under ideal circumstances, a multi-method approach for convergent validity with self-report data should be used. Gold standard, objective, or other validation methods should be used whenever possible to corroborate patient self-reports (e.g., CO, cotinine, measured weight in light clothing, measured height without shoes, measured BMI, measured BP, measured fasting serum cholesterol, pathology test results, medical records). Researchers can also use alternative measures of self-report such as narrative data (e.g., Lane & Viney, 2005 xClose
Lane, L.G., & Viney, L.L. (2005). The effects of personal construct group therapy on breast cancer survivors. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 73, 284-292.) or key informant reports (e.g., physician, family, or significant others). When self-report is the only option, multiple types of subjective reports ought to be included to increase the validity of findings. Finally, researchers should consistently describe their data collection methods and steps taken to maximize self-report accuracy, and indicate how the use of self-report measurements may limit conclusions.
|
