Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the CAHPS Patient-Centered Medical Home Survey

Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) survey. Methods: We conducted a field test of the CAHPS PCMH survey with 2740 adults. We collected information by mail (n = 1746), telephone (n = 672), and from the Web (n = 322) from 6 sites of care affiliated with a West Coast staff model health maintenance organization. Results: An overall response rate of 37% was obtained. Internal consistency reliability estimates for 7 multi-item scales were as follows: access to care, 5 items, alpha = 0.79; communication with providers, 6 items, alpha = 0.93; office staff courtesy and respect, 2 items, alpha = 0.80; shared decision making about medicines, 3 items, alpha = 0.67; self-management support, 2 items, alpha = 0.61; attention to mental health issues, 3 items, alpha = 0.80; and care coordination, 4 items, alpha = 0.58. The number of responses needed to get reliable information at the site of care level for the composites was generally acceptable ( < 300 for 0.70 reliability-level) except for self-management support and shared decision making about medicines. Item-scale correlations provided support for distinct composites except for access to care and shared decision making about medicines, which overlapped with the communication with providers scale. Shared decision making and self-management support were significantly, uniquely associated with the global rating of the provider (dependent variable), along with access and communication in a multiple regression model. Conclusions: This study provides further support for the reliability and validity of the CARPS PCMH survey, but refinement of the self-management support and shared decision-making scales is needed. The survey can be used to provide information about the performance of different health plans on multiple domains of health care, but future efforts to improve some of the survey items is needed. (C) 2014 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.