Skip to main content
Fig. 4 | Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Fig. 4

From: Randomized comparative study of child and caregiver responses to three software functions added to the Japanese version of the electronic Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (ePedsQL) questionnaire

Fig. 4

Subgroup analysis of the subjective legibility of two formats of ePedsQL questionnaires. Full question and response options: (i) Was it hard to answer, based on your overall impression? Answer 1 if not hard at all, 7 if very hard; (ii) How visible were the characters? 1 if very easy to see, 7 if very difficult to see; (iii) How appropriate was the size of characters? 1 if too small, 4 if appropriate, 7 if too big; (iv) Did you understand the meaning of questions easily? 1 if very easy to understand, 7 if very difficult to understand; (v) How easy was it to select the response options? 1 if very easy, 7 if very difficult; (vi) Are your eyes tired now? 1 if not tired at all, 7 if very tired. CI: confidence interval. Dif: Difference. If the difference between the mean value in the basic format and dynamic format was greater than 0, this indicates that the reporters favored the basic format over the dynamic format. For example, children of survey company users reported an average of 2.0 for illegibility for the dynamic format and 1.8 for illegibility for the basic format. Therefore they favored the basic format by 0.2 points. The 95% confidence intervals are also shown. Intervals further to the right mean the basic format was favored. * Difference in mean illegibility reported between basic and dynamic formats > 0.5 points

Back to article page