Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: A rationale for the sf-36 physical function scale in the sport intervertebral disc herniation cohort

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 16, 2009, Pages 1722-1731

  Spratt, Kevin F ^a,b,c  

^a DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^c DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Classical test theory; Conditional standard errors of measurement; Item response theory; Minimally detectable measurement difference; Minimum clinically important difference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT FORM 36; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; COHORT STUDIES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 68949156119     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a8faf2     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10: 407-415
2. Wells G, Anderson J, Boers M, et al. MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1115-1118
3. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
4. Lassere MN, van der Heijde D, Johnson KR, et al. Reliability of measures of disease activity and disease damage in rheumatoid arthritis: implications for smallest detectable difference, minimal clinically important difference, and analysis of treatment effects in randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 2001;28:892-903.
5. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, et al. A taxonomy for responsiveness-.[see comment]. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1204-1217
6. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Fain 2005;113:9-19.
7. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90-94
8. Dhawan V, Spratt K, Pinzur M, et al. Reliability of AOFAS diabetic foot questionnaire in Charcot arthropathy: stability, internal consistency, and measurable difference. Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:717-731
9. Wyrwich KW. Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J Biopbarma Stat 2004;14:97-110.
10. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al; The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005;14-2:285-295
11. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, et al. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999 ;37-.469-478
12. Atkins D, Bedics J, McGlinchey J, et al. Assessing Clinical significance: does it matter which method we use? J Consult Clin Psycbol 2005;73:982-989
13. Hsu L. Reliable changes in psychotherapy: taking into account regression toward the mean. Behav Assess 1989;ll:459-467
14. Maassen G. Principles of defining reliable change indices. J Clin Exp Neu-ropsychol 2000;22:622-632
15. Birkmeyer NJ, WeinsteinJN, Tosteson AN, et al. Design of the Spine Patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2002;27:1361-1372
16. Novick M, ed. Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1985.
17. Thorndike R. Reliability. In: Lindquist E, ed. Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1951:560-620.
18. Feldt LS, Quails A. Estimation of measurement error variance at specific score levels. J Educ Meas 1996;33:141-156
19. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 2000.
20. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res 2003;12:981-1002.
21. Muraki E, Bock RD. PARSCALE: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded response open-ended exercises and performance task. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International; 1993.
22. Bock RD, Mislevy RJ. Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Appl Psychol Meas 1982;6:431-444
23. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies. Qual Life Res 2003;12:887-902.
24. Allen M, Yen W. Introduction to Measurement Theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1979.
25. Anastasi A. Psycological Testing. 6th ed. New York, NY: MacMillian; 1988.
26. Feldt LS, Brennan RL. Reliability. In: Linn RL, ed. Educational Measurement. New York, NY: Macmillian Publishing Company; 1989:105-146
27. Glutting J, McDermont P, Stanley J. Resolving differences among methods of establishing confidence limits of test scores. Educ Psychol Meas 1987;47: 607-614
28. Gullliksen H. Theory of Mental Tests. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1950:486.
29. Lord F, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Menlo Park, CA: Addision-Wesley; 1968.
30. Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
31. Stanley J. Reliability. In: Thorndike R, ed. Educational Measurement. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1971.
32. Charters R, Feldt LS. Confidence intervals for true scores: is there a correct approach? J Psychoeduc Assess 2001;19:350-364
33. 33. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, et al. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-615