A comparison of different indices of responsiveness

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 239-246

  Wright, James G ^a,b   Young, Nancy L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health measurement; Measurement; Responsiveness; Scales

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SELF REPORT; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0030951480     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00373-3     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Feinstein AR. Clinical Epidemiology: Architecture of Clinical Research. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1985.
2. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: S217-S232.
3. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992; 30: 917-925.
4. Harris WH, Sledge CB. Total hip and total knee replacement. N Engl J Med; 1990; 323: 801-807.
5. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chron Dis 1986; 39: 897-906.
6. Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: Sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Services Res 1984; 19: 275-289.
7. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 171-178.
8. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K. Can the sickness impact profile measure change: An example of scale assessment. J Chron Dis 1986; 39: 429-438.
9. Liang MH. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 1191-1192.
10. Churchill DN, Wallace JE, Ludwin D, Beecroft ML, Taylor DW. A comparison of evaluative indices of quality of life and cognitive function in hemodialysis patients. Controlled Clin Trials 1991; 12: 159S-167S.
11. Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D. The Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group. The use of generic and specific quality-of-life measures in hemodialysis patients treated with Erythropoietin. Controlled Clin Trials 1991; 12: 168S-179S.
12. Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992; 30: 240-252.
13. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 1369-1378.
14. Buchbinder R, Bombardier C, Yeung M, Tugwell P. Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures' responsiveness to treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Arthrit Rheumat 1995; 38: 1568-1580.
15. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A. A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol 1993; 30: 429-436.
16. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K. A patient-specific measure of change in maximal function. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 1325-1329.
17. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C, Grace E, Bennett K, Williams H, Egger M, Alarcon G, et al. Impact on quality of life assessed by traditional standard-item and individualized patient preference health status questionnaires. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 59-62.
18. Guyatt G, Berman LB, Townsend M, Taylor DW. Should study subjects see their previous responses? J Chron Dis 1985; 38: 1003-1007.
19. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1969; 51-A: 737-755.
20. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: Experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Sem Arthrit Rheumat 1989; 18: 14-17.
21. Bellamy N, Buchanan W. A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol 1986; 5: 231-241.
22. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C, Campbell J, Stitt L. Validation Study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to anti-rheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1833-1840.
23. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JFR. The validity and relative precision of MOS short-and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 1992; 30: MS253-MS265.
24. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483.
25. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS short form and general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724-735.
26. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Grace E, Hanna B. The MACTAR patient preference disability questionnaire - An individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1987; 14: 446-451.
27. Wright JG, Rudicel S, Feinstein A. Asking patients what they want: A new method for judging the success of total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1994; 76B-2: 229-234.
28. Wright JG, Young NL. The reliability and validity of asking patients what they want. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Canadian Orthopaedic Research Society; June, 1995.
29. Guyatt GH, Townsend N, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 1129-1133.
30. Bartko JJ. The intra-class correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psych Report 1966; 19: 3-11.
31. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psych Bull 1979; 86: 420-428.
32. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981.
33. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 7: 632-642.
34. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthrit Rheumat 1985; 28: 542-547.
35. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Pub.; 1988.
36. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S188.
37. Fleiss. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1986.
38. Bombardier C, Melfi CA, Paul J, Green R, Hawker G, Wright JG, Coyte P. Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care 1995; 33: AS131-AS144.
39. Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1987.
40. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1978.
41. Wright JG, Feinstein AR. A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1201-1218.
42. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH, Measurement in health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-415.
43. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, Baker PRA, Groh J, Redelmeier DA. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: The patient's perspective. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 557-560.
44. Wright JG. The minimally important difference; who's to say what is important. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 48: 1221-1222.