Measuring satisfaction with health care: A comparison of single with paired rating strategies

One of the central problems in studies of patient satisfaction with health care is the development of reliable and valid methods to determine the relative importance of different aspects of health care. Two techniques, paired comparisons and rating on a visual analogue scale, were compared in terms of their consistency with logical assumptions, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity. Thirty women with breast cancer were asked to assess brief hypothetical scenarios describing out-patient clinic visits to a tertiary cancer care centre. Each scenario incorporated three variables related to satisfaction with care: staff attitude, control over treatment decisions, and continuity of medical supervision. The paired choice method showed marginally better reliability and logical consistency than the rating method. Of the three variables assessed, continuity of medical supervision was consistently ranked highest in importance, and control over treatment decisions lowest. These preference assessment techniques appear to be suitable for use in the development of patient satisfaction indices, and for studies designed to examine variations in the priority given to different aspects of satisfaction with care.