The medical group survey from the CAHPS® (formerly Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study) project, G-CAHPS, focuses on patient experiences in receiving care from their medical group practice. We compared mail and telephone responses to the GCAHPS survey in a sample of 880 patients from four physician groups. Patients were randomly assigned to mode. Analyses included comparison of response rates, missing data, internal consistency reliability of six multi-item scales, and mean scores. A total of 537 phone completes and 343 mail completes were obtained (54% response rate). There were no significant differences in internal consistency by mode. In addition, there was only one significant mode difference in item and composite means by mode of administration after adjusting for case-mix differences. This study indicates that mail and telephone modes of data collection for the G-CAHPS survey produce similar results.
Originally published in: Evauation and the Health Professions, v. 28, no. 4, December 2005, pp. 377-389.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.