Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer

Arti Hurria, Chie Akiba, Jerome Kim, Dale Mitani, Matthew Loscalzo, Vani Katheria, Marianna Koczywas, Sumanta Pal, Vincent Chung, Stephen Forman, Nitya Nathwani, Marwan Fakih, Chatchada Karanes, Dean Lim, Leslie Popplewell, Harvey Cohen, Beverly Canin, David Cella, Betty Ferrell, Leanne Goldstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

40 Scopus citations


Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computerbased geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture (SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. Results: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil (P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. Conclusion: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e1025-e1034
JournalJournal of oncology practice
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy


Dive into the research topics of 'Reliability, validity, and feasibility of a computer-based geriatric assessment for older adults with cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this